Can You Shoot to Protect Property in TEXAS

[MoJo]

Good reply A-R.

Remember the threat of deadly force is not the use of deadly force. Shouting something like, "Get away from my property or I'll shoot" or even "brandishing" your weapon is not use of deadly force. As you said, things could go into the toilet real fast if you do something like this.

MoJo

[The Annoyed Man]

As other above have said.... "Yes, you can." That said, "do you really want to?"

Even if the shoot is completely justified, there is a high probability that the local DA will convene a grand jury to determine if you should go to trial. Even if you are ultimately no-billed, weigh the cost of a used TV worth $1,500 when it was new, against $50,000-$100,000 or more to mount a defense. In that light, even $19,000 worth of guns really isn't about the money. However, it most definitely IS about preventing the arming of a felon. If someone were trying to steal my stereo, I'd probably just run 'em off with a rifle or shotgun. If it were someone trying to steal $19,000 worth of weaponry, I'd most likely shoot 'em first, and then call an ambulance and the PD. It really doesn't matter to me if the weapons consisted of two high-end shotguns, or 20 AR-15s.

[Heartland Patriot]

As other above have said.... "Yes, you can." That said, "do you really want to?"

Even if the shoot is completely justified, there is a high probability that the local DA will convene a grand jury to determine if you should go to trial. Even if you are ultimately no-billed, weigh the cost of a used TV worth $1,500 when it was new, against $50,000-$100,000 or more to mount a defense. In that light, even $19,000 worth of guns really isn't about the money. However, it most definitely IS about preventing the arming of a felon. If someone were trying to steal my stereo, I'd probably just run 'em off with a rifle or shotgun. If it were someone trying to steal $19,000 worth of weaponry, I'd most likely shoot 'em first, and then call an ambulance and the PD. It really doesn't matter to me if the weapons consisted of two high-end shotguns, or 20 AR-15s.

With you living in Grapevine, TAM or me living in FW, I'm just about certain that you'd have a grand jury to stand before in a situation such as the OP described...now, in some small West Texas town, maybe not...

[SSB]

Definitely on an arson or attempted arson (esp MY HOUSE). Crack houses may be burned at will.

The way our class was taught, if there is a "way" to replace the property, then shooting is not an option. Bamsch indicated that either insurance or just having a job might, in the eyes of a jury, be enough to say "it could be replaced, so not justified." This is very sticky to me, and I do not want any of my friends to be "test cases."

Review the last 12 months of Joe Horn's happy existence in Pasadena.

YMMV

seconds

I am sorry, but "Sgt. Bamsch" did not say this. Please, be careful of quoting someone incorrectly.

[Kythas]

I'm seeing a lot of answers on here and none that are really correct.

I would assume what you're asking is regarding theft. If you saw someone trying to steal your truck while you're not in it, or even taking stuff out of the back of your truck, that is theft. Robbery is different and has a different definition.

So it really depends on the situation. If someone walks up to you and says "Give me your wallet" then that's a robbery and deadly force is legal in Texas at all times.

If someone's stealing the tools out of the back of your truck, you may use deadly force in Texas only if the theft is occurring at night AND if you reasonably believe you cannot recover the property by any other means. Note that the law says "recover" and not "replace".

Also, "nighttime" also has a legal definition. It is the period 30 minutes after sunset to 30 minutes before sunrise.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

[bkj]

PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible,
movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
Joe Horn witnessed two men break into his neighbor house
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
Joe Horn witnessed them taking his neighbors property out of the house to a truck
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
The 911 operator did not tell Mr. Horn about officer on site.
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
When Joe Horn confronted the men one approached him with a screw driver.

PC §9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to
protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or
property;
Joe Hornes neighbor testified they had agree to protect each others property as if it was their own
B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property;
or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or
deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides
with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Joe Horn has had many civil problems but was not charged with a crime
In the last ten years or so, here in the Houston areas 2 repo men have been killed, no charges file in either cases.

I can not think of anything I own worth killing for

[A-R]

good points, kythas. must always remember that - unlike justifications for use of deadly force to protect persons - the justifications to use deadly force to protect property ARE solely determined by the type of crime being committed.

[40khammer]

Good reply A-R.

Remember the threat of deadly force is not the use of deadly force. Shouting something like, "Get away from my property or I'll shoot" or even "brandishing" your weapon is not use of deadly force. As you said, things could go into the toilet real fast if you do something like this.

MoJo

The threat of deadly force is only justified when the actual use of that level of force would be justified. If you can't shoot, then you can't threaten to shoot or brandish the weapon.

Also:

§ 30.04. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective
consent of the owner, he breaks into or enters a vehicle or any part of a vehicle with intent to
commit any felony or theft.

(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.

(c) For purposes of this section, a container or trailer carried on a rail car is a part of the
rail car.

Breaking into a car is burglary and deadly force is authorized.

[A-R]

Good reply A-R.

Remember the threat of deadly force is not the use of deadly force. Shouting something like, "Get away from my property or I'll shoot" or even "brandishing" your weapon is not use of deadly force. As you said, things could go into the toilet real fast if you do something like this.

MoJo

The threat of deadly force is only justified when the actual use of that level of force would be justified. If you can't shoot, then you can't threaten to shoot or brandish the weapon.

I think you're wrong on that. Unless you're carrying under authority of a CHL (which has it's own unique and, IMHO, problematic twist to it - see below), the threat of force by producing a weapon does not equal the use of force.

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

However, if the weapon you're using is carried under authority of a CHL, producing a weapon when deadly force is not justified could be an unlawful failure to conceal.

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.
(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9.

emphasis added

In a nutshell, if you're on your own property (and thus not carrying under authority of a CHL because you don't need a CHL to carry a gun on your own property) you can produce a weapon as a threat of deadly force when use of force is justified. If you're in public and thus carrying your weapon under authority of your CHL, intentionally unconcealing our weapon when only the use of force (and not deadly force) is justified could be unlawful.

[40khammer]

You are correct. I made the mistake of assuming the subject was carrying in public. On your own property you can walk around with whatever weapon you're legally aloud to own if you want to. However, pointing it at somebody would be considered a use of deadly force and thus would only be justified if the use of deadly force was authorized.

No matter where you're at pointing a weapon at somebody is a use of deadly force.

[Kythas]

You are correct. I made the mistake of assuming the subject was carrying in public. On your own property you can walk around with whatever weapon you're legally aloud to own if you want to. However, pointing it at somebody would be considered a use of deadly force and thus would only be justified if the use of deadly force was authorized.

No matter where you're at pointing a weapon at somebody is a use of deadly force.

I'm not quite sure. The statute clearly states that while the threat of deadly force is only justified when the use of deadly force would also be justified, the threat of deadly force in and of itself is not considered deadly force as long as your intent is limited to making the other person believe you're willing to use deadly force if necessary.

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

If you pull the trigger then that is use of deadly force no matter where you're aiming or where you hit - really, even IF you hit. Pulling the trigger itself constitutes the act of use of deadly force whether or not you hit your target.

[40khammer]

While you are correct, I do know that there are plenty of people in prison for Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon for pointing a firearm at somebody and threatening them.

[KingofChaos]

While you are correct, I do know that there are plenty of people in prison for Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon for pointing a firearm at somebody and threatening them.

I've got to agree with the man who made my holster. I've been told by LEOs that production and pointing the boom end at someone are not the same thing. From what I've been told you can show/unholster and threatened to use it, but if the use of deadly force isn't legal, you can't point it at anyone. It moves from threat, to assault once you point it at them; seems logical to me. My reaction to a holstered gun and one pointed at me are going to be very different, assuming things haven't escalated and I don't think the person is going for it. That being said, I don't think the production of a weapon when you can't use it is a smart idea. You've effectively just given the other party reason to believe that their life is in danger, and they can now legally draw and fire on you, while you can't legally fire back.

[A-R]

While you are correct, I do know that there are plenty of people in prison for Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon for pointing a firearm at somebody and threatening them.

Were those folks justified in using force? Or were they the aggressors? Was pointing a gun at the other person a reaction to provocation or a reasonable response, immediately necessary to repel an imminent attack or unlawful use of force?

I'm no lawyer, but I believe if you're justified in using physical force to stop someone else's actions then you're justified in pointing a gun at them to stop those same actions. Not saying it's always prudent, but as long as it's a reasonable response to the other person's unjustified and unlawful use of force, then I think you'll end up on the good side of the final outcome.

The problem comes when people react to a confrontation that on its own does not justify a use of force response - for instance, the guy standing on a public street calling you names, cursing like a drunken sailor, making your "nervous" but showing no other signs that an attack or unlawful use of force against you is imminent. And then you pull a gun and point it at him to "make him go away". This is NOT what we're saying and NOT what is justified under the law. At least not within the narrow confines of the information I gave above - other extenuating circumstances not revealed above could change the whole dynamic of the situation and the justified response to the situation.

Now take the same scenario above and the guy is on YOUR property, harassing you, refuses to leave, and maybe he's even damaging your property or trying to steal something etc. You have a right - like a bouncer in a bar or a security guard at a mall, bank, etc. - to physically escort him off your property if he has no legitimate legal right to be there (not saying I recommend this, just saying you have right to do so). In this scenario, if the offending person is a 25-year-old thug and you're a 75-year-old grandma, I personally would find it reasonable (though again, not necessarily prudent - better to call the police) for you to point a shotgun at him and tell him to "get the heck off my gosh-darn property, ya dumb whipper snapper!"

[MasterOfNone]

Also:

§ 30.04. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective
consent of the owner, he breaks into or enters a vehicle or any part of a vehicle with intent to
commit any felony or theft.

(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.

(c) For purposes of this section, a container or trailer carried on a rail car is a part of the
rail car.

Breaking into a car is burglary and deadly force is authorized.

I believe this is incorrect. 30.02 BURGLARY and 30.04 BURGLARY OF VEHICLES are two separate offenses. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES is not a subclass of BURGLARY, as they are peer sections (same level, not one nested within the other) of code. Otherwise, we would have to include 30.03 BURGLARY OF COIN-OPERATED OR COIN COLLECTION MACHINES as a justification for deadly force.
Also consider that in 9.42(2)(A), ROBBERY and AGGRAVATED ROBBERY are both listed. If BURGLARY OF VEHICLES was to be a justification for deadly force, it would have surely been specifically included in addition to BURGLARY.