Can You Shoot to Protect Property in TEXAS

[speedsix]

I will post a "copy / paste" of the blood act when I get home from this trip. I wouldn't want to cite it for risk of mod informing someone. I will get on here as quick as possible.

...have a safe trip...we'll be here...

[tbrown]

I'm sure the following question has been "asked & answered," but my search didn't turn up anything.

I am a CCW instructor in Louisiana, and am asked this a lot (since our states have reciprocity): Can you use deadly force in Texas to protect property? My stock answer is to "look it up," since I don't teach Texas laws. But I'm asking here because this site has far more credibility than most internet forums.

* When I'm asked the question, it is usually couched in terms of "In Texas, can I shoot a guy who is burglarizing my truck?"

* I have read Texas Section 941, and it appears to generally indicate "yes." (In Louisiana we cannot - we can only use deadly force to protect people).

* I understand, and explain to those who ask, that it's not wise to go and confront a robber, and remind them that "stuff can be replaced."

So, WITH ALL THAT SAID, IN TEXAS, Can you legally shoot someone who is breaking into, or has broken into, your vehicle ?? (Not that it matters, but the guy who recently posed the question to me has had his vehicle broken into several times, most recently losing ~ $19,000 of guns. These were super high grade shotuns, and he's understandibly perturbed.)

After all this discussion, I'm curious if you changed your standard answer when students ask the question?

[speedsix]

...tell them that if the situation is as in 9.41, and 9.42 is satisfied, or 9.43...the answer can be yes...legally...

...if ALL of the above isn't satisfied, either for your own or another's property...NO...you can't pick and choose...

...personally, my choice is NO, I would not shoot someone to prevent theft of my property...YES, I would shoot an intruder who showed any sign of personal threat or who was armed or armed himself while he was on/in my property...my choice says I value life more than any THING I own...
...sometimes the better choice goes way above what the law allows...

[dafobbishon3]

Some things are still a bit unclear to me.
Yes, everyone says don't shoot if you can replace/recover the item whether it be an ipod, tv, laptop, etc. it isn't worth it, UNLESS the intruder endangers your life or your loved ones, why? Because you're going to have to be court fees etc. and that you saving a $500 TV isn't worth the $15,000 in court fees; yes, fine I get it
Then other people say "under the castle doctrine" if a person breaks into your home, to shoot at the intruder and that under that castle doctrine, you will be justified and will not have to go to pay the fees.
So what is the REAL truth? none of the grey stuff.
But also include the fact that having [Pre-paid legal service] as an insurance policy, they claim to "cover you from civil all the way up to the grand jury", to me that's very general, does that mean they will cover all the court fees that I will be charged with even if I get no-billed?
Like I said, majority of everyone says that it isn't worth shooting someone over a TV, unless your life or a loved one's life is in danger but then other people say that in Texas we are covered under the Castle Doctrine if someone breaks in our house (not knowing if they are stealing something or want to rape/kill the family, though keep in mind that many burglars are majority of the time armed) and won't have to worry about fees?
Even in yahoo-answers, everyone says only in the state of texas can you shoot someone just for breaking into your house because of the castle doctrine.
Gotta love being a Texan!
After those questions are answered, take this article for example http://www.click2houston.com/news/HPD-H ... index.html
BUT INSTEAD of the neighbor doing the shooting, imagine it as your home, your home was being robbed and they took all that stuff and you shot at them. You saw they took your valuables, laptops etc.. At the end of the video they state that no charges have been filed. So obviously the person was justified in using force. Does that mean that the person was not given any court fees? Did they not have to pay a dime since they were justified? Also include the fact they are with [pre-paid legal].
Or even with this article http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=8585353. Adult son shoots people breaking and entering, and at the end of the article, there were no formal charges. So in doing so, performing such a courageous act, he was not charged, so he didn't have to get a lawyer, and had no fees to pay? He was free to go since he was justified?

[srothstein]

OK, the real and unvarnished truth, as best as I can from my experience, training, and knowledge. There is no set answer as to what will happen if you are involved in a shooting. Too much depends on the attitudes of the police, DA, and you when it happens, as well as the specific facts of the case.

There are three separate factors mentioned in your post. 1. What is the law on defensive shooting? 2. When is a shooting personally justified? and 3. What will happen if I am involved in a shooting.

The answer to number 1 is covered in Penal Code chapter 9. The law says (in a simplified manner) that you may shoot someone if they enter your home (and a few other places) without permission and by using force. It says you may only shoot to recover stolen property if there is no other way to recover the property. It also gives you the right to defend your life in other cases. Read chapter 9 and you can make your own interpretation of exactly what it says. Feel free to ask more specific questions about any section you need clarified.

The answer to number 2 is all your own decision. You have to decide what you are willing to kill over. Some people on the board think most property is not worth killing a suspect over since they have insurance that will replace the item. Others feel that the person is actually stealing time from my life (the time I worked to get the money to buy the item and the time I use to get the insurance to cover it). And still a few others feel that the suspect deserves being shot just for stealing to begin with. I have my opinions but you need to make your own mind up. Believe me, taking someone's life is a very personal decision as to what justifies it.

The answer to number 3 is also very varied. If you are involved in a shooting that the law clearly says is justified (as opposed to a gray area), some police officers will arrest you anyway and you will need a lawyer and will pay the expenses involved with defending yourself in court. In some cases, the police will ask if you need more target practice since it took two shots instead of one. You may know your area and if the police and prosecutor are liberal, conservative, support and support or dislike people defending themselves. And if the media gets involved, the police attitudes could change either way.

So, we all speculate on cases and make statements based on our area and situation, but no one else can say exactly what will happen to you. As proof of this, I will show the case of a friend of mine on SAPD. He shot a car burglary suspect who lunged at him and ended up going through very hard times, including a grand jury at the state level, a state civil trial, and a federal civil trial. The media got involved and made it look like the officer had made a mistake and had an accidental shooting. And I was involved in a shooting of an armed robbery suspect. The media got involved and made it look like the suspect had been in a crime spree all night, shooting up half of San Antonio, and the whole department had been hunting for him for hours. I had never heard of him until a robbery call about 15 minutes before the shooting and the whole story happened in about two minutes in a school parking lot. I has given one night off and then my regular days off and was back on duty in three days with nothing else to worry about. I was never charged or sued. No one can tell what will happen in any specific case until it happens.

[Oldgringo]

OK, the real and unvarnished truth, as best as I can from my experience, training, and knowledge. There is no set answer as to what will happen if you are involved in a shooting. Too much depends on the attitudes of the police, DA, and you when it happens, as well as the specific facts of the case.

There are three separate factors mentioned in your post. 1. What is the law on defensive shooting? 2. When is a shooting personally justified? and 3. What will happen if I am involved in a shooting.

The answer to number 1 is covered in Penal Code chapter 9. The law says (in a simplified manner) that you may shoot someone if they enter your home (and a few other places) without permission and by using force. It says you may only shoot to recover stolen property if there is no other way to recover the property. It also gives you the right to defend your life in other cases. Read chapter 9 and you can make your own interpretation of exactly what it says. Feel free to ask more specific questions about any section you need clarified.

The answer to number 2 is all your own decision. You have to decide what you are willing to kill over. Some people on the board think most property is not worth killing a suspect over since they have insurance that will replace the item. Others feel that the person is actually stealing time from my life (the time I worked to get the money to buy the item and the time I use to get the insurance to cover it). And still a few others feel that the suspect deserves being shot just for stealing to begin with. I have my opinions but you need to make your own mind up. Believe me, taking someone's life is a very personal decision as to what justifies it.

The answer to number 3 is also very varied. If you are involved in a shooting that the law clearly says is justified (as opposed to a gray area), some police officers will arrest you anyway and you will need a lawyer and will pay the expenses involved with defending yourself in court. In some cases, the police will ask if you need more target practice since it took two shots instead of one. You may know your area and if the police and prosecutor are liberal, conservative, support and support or dislike people defending themselves. And if the media gets involved, the police attitudes could change either way.

So, we all speculate on cases and make statements based on our area and situation, but no one else can say exactly what will happen to you. As proof of this, I will show the case of a friend of mine on SAPD. He shot a car burglary suspect who lunged at him and ended up going through very hard times, including a grand jury at the state level, a state civil trial, and a federal civil trial. The media got involved and made it look like the officer had made a mistake and had an accidental shooting. And I was involved in a shooting of an armed robbery suspect. The media got involved and made it look like the suspect had been in a crime spree all night, shooting up half of San Antonio, and the whole department had been hunting for him for hours. I had never heard of him until a robbery call about 15 minutes before the shooting and the whole story happened in about two minutes in a school parking lot. I has given one night off and then my regular days off and was back on duty in three days with nothing else to worry about. I was never charged or sued. No one can tell what will happen in any specific case until it happens.

Thank you, Steve.

Long story short, if you shoot somebody, it is very likely to draw a large and expensive crowd. Pick your battles wisely.

[dafobbishon3]

OK, the real and unvarnished truth, as best as I can from my experience, training, and knowledge. There is no set answer as to what will happen if you are involved in a shooting. Too much depends on the attitudes of the police, DA, and you when it happens, as well as the specific facts of the case.

There are three separate factors mentioned in your post. 1. What is the law on defensive shooting? 2. When is a shooting personally justified? and 3. What will happen if I am involved in a shooting.

The answer to number 1 is covered in Penal Code chapter 9. The law says (in a simplified manner) that you may shoot someone if they enter your home (and a few other places) without permission and by using force. It says you may only shoot to recover stolen property if there is no other way to recover the property. It also gives you the right to defend your life in other cases. Read chapter 9 and you can make your own interpretation of exactly what it says. Feel free to ask more specific questions about any section you need clarified.

The answer to number 2 is all your own decision. You have to decide what you are willing to kill over. Some people on the board think most property is not worth killing a suspect over since they have insurance that will replace the item. Others feel that the person is actually stealing time from my life (the time I worked to get the money to buy the item and the time I use to get the insurance to cover it). And still a few others feel that the suspect deserves being shot just for stealing to begin with. I have my opinions but you need to make your own mind up. Believe me, taking someone's life is a very personal decision as to what justifies it.

The answer to number 3 is also very varied. If you are involved in a shooting that the law clearly says is justified (as opposed to a gray area), some police officers will arrest you anyway and you will need a lawyer and will pay the expenses involved with defending yourself in court. In some cases, the police will ask if you need more target practice since it took two shots instead of one. You may know your area and if the police and prosecutor are liberal, conservative, support and support or dislike people defending themselves. And if the media gets involved, the police attitudes could change either way.

So, we all speculate on cases and make statements based on our area and situation, but no one else can say exactly what will happen to you. As proof of this, I will show the case of a friend of mine on SAPD. He shot a car burglary suspect who lunged at him and ended up going through very hard times, including a grand jury at the state level, a state civil trial, and a federal civil trial. The media got involved and made it look like the officer had made a mistake and had an accidental shooting. And I was involved in a shooting of an armed robbery suspect. The media got involved and made it look like the suspect had been in a crime spree all night, shooting up half of San Antonio, and the whole department had been hunting for him for hours. I had never heard of him until a robbery call about 15 minutes before the shooting and the whole story happened in about two minutes in a school parking lot. I has given one night off and then my regular days off and was back on duty in three days with nothing else to worry about. I was never charged or sued. No one can tell what will happen in any specific case until it happens. Could you/Would you shoot him then? He's on your property, illegally, which does prove you justified and the doctrine does give you permission to shoot in that matter. Keep in mind this is all before we talk about "replacing property"

I understand that, that you can shoot them if your property if in no way able to be recovered in which practically anything can be recovered/replaced (assuming money isn't an issue) but people's lives cannot be recovered/replaced. But I want to break down that even more from the person breaking into your home and assuming they are stealing something. Say you were watching TV in the living room, you hear someone in your lawn, you look outside the window and you see the intruder trying to open the front door so you grab your gun and wait for him. He finds a way inside your house but you're there waiting for him because you knew he was coming. You point a gun and him, tell him he has 5 seconds to get out or you'll shoot. You have no idea why he's inside, it could be he wanted to steal something ,it could be he wanted to rape someone, it could be he wanted to kill someone, but you caught him before he was able to do anything.

I do agree with someone people when they say "they spend their whole life savings" or "they worked really hard for that (valuable item) which is being stolen". But my other deciding factor would have to be, if a problem arises, would [Pre-paid legal service] cover me? Financially and Legally? So that just goes back to point #3. I understand that you're taking one's life, but that's the life they chose to live! Everyone should know better not to break into people's houses in the State of Texas with the Castle Doctrine and all. For people that say, "I won't shoot someone for stealing anything I can replace". Okay, so he breaks in and takes your TV, you call the cops, he runs away with your TV because you let him go. Cops never find him, he comes back again and takes your lamp. You call the cops, he runs away with your lamp. Intruders will just keep on doing what they're doing because they know they'll get away with it. What would you do then?

So in reality, like you had said, "it's a hit or a miss". You never really know if you'll have to pay fees or not because in your case, you walked away with your pockets still full. Really it's best to not really shoot unless you have to so you won't have to worry about paying for fees until the real deal actually happens. But in the same sense, what if since I have [Pre-paid legal service] insurance. If I do have to go to court, they do say they cover our fees from civil all the way up to the grand jury- which is from what I understood, but I'd have to go home and check out the paper again and see exactly what they cover. I know a lot of people have been asking about [Pre-paid legal service] and if it is a scam or if it is worth paying for, so I'll post a picture up tomorrow and show everyone what they cover and so I can get some more things cleared up

[smoothoperator]

I understand that, that you can shoot them if your property if in no way able to be recovered in which practically anything can be recovered/replaced

The law says recover, not replace. Insurance may replace property but that's not the same as recovering or protecting it, and any cop can tell you about what percentage of stolen property is recovered and returned to its rightful owner.

Intruders will just keep on doing what they're doing because they know they'll get away with it. What would you do then?

What we would do is not important. As Mr. Rothstein said, the moral question is something you have to answer for yourself. If you need help, I suggest your preacher/priest/rabbi/iman or your parents, instead of strangers on the internet.

So in reality, like you had said, "it's a hit or a miss". You never really know if you'll have to pay fees or not

There are no guarantees in this life. Maybe on the other side of the river.

[tommyg]

I would not use deadly force to protect property..Even if you beat any
criminal wrap you will loose your property to law suits and lawyer fees.

[dafobbishon3]

I think you guys are excluding the fact that [Pre-paid legal service] is in the equation.
That or, even with [Pre-paid legal service], there will still be fees that have to be paid for..?

[Jumping Frog]

I think you guys are excluding the fact that [Pre-paid legal service] is in the equation.

[Pre-paid legal service] is not a magic amulet protecting from all possible harm . . .

If a course of behavior is prudent without [Pre-paid legal service], it is still prudent when a subscriber.

[Kythas]

What I haven't seen in this discussion is the emphasis on " theft during the nighttime":

§ 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.

To me, this makes it pretty clear that deadly force to prevent a theft or criminal mischief is only legal at night, which is defined in Texas law as 30 minutes after sunset to 30 minutes before sunrise.

So the answer to the OP's original question is "Yes, but only at night".

If this has, in fact, been mentioned in this thread then I missed it and I apologize.

[sjfcontrol]

What I haven't seen in this discussion is the emphasis on " theft during the nighttime":

§ 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.

To me, this makes it pretty clear that deadly force to prevent a theft or criminal mischief is only legal at night, which is defined in Texas law as 30 minutes after sunset to 30 minutes before sunrise.

So the answer to the OP's original question is "Yes, but only at night".

If this has, in fact, been mentioned in this thread then I missed it and I apologize.

The OP originally mentioned burglary, which is different than simple theft. There is no nighttime requirement for burglary.

[nightmare]

The OP originally mentioned burglary, which is different than simple theft. There is no nighttime requirement for burglary.

Stealing a rake laying on my front lawn is theft. Stepping or reaching into my garage to steal a rake is burglary.

[nightmare]

Even if you beat any criminal wrap you will loose your property to law suits and lawyer fees.

Can you please share some examples in Texas? Your statement of risk to real and personal property from lawsuits is at odds with my understanding of Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as well as Chapters 41 and 42, Property Code. Thanks for helping me understand better.