Catch someone breaking into car

[txgrifter]

So yesterday my Jeep was broken into. I got out to the parking lot at 4pm after work and notice that the key hole was damaged and someone got in and took my radar detector. I wanted to know, and I have been pondering in my head, If the event I walked out and saw the guy doing it, since I have a chl, what 'should' i have done? I have been looking through the law and I really suck at reading legal jargon..

If it is at night, and someone is committing theft, then this is a situation where you can draw and use deadly force if needed
I see that also, it is justified if someone attempts or is committing burglary.. does this apply to a car ?

What would you all do in the situation, you are walking out and see someone breaking into / inside your car

thanks!

[CainA]

I wouldn't shoot the perp even if justified. Material things aren't worth the legal headache.

[OldGrumpy]

There are many learned scholars on here who can correct my error but my basic layman understanding of CHL law is that it gives you the right to defend life - not police power.

[txgrifter]

Like I said, it just got me thinking of what I 'should' do in the situation since it got me thinking... I am not saying I WANT to do this.. I am just asking.. so if I walk out and see someone in my car.. just let them do their thing? yell at them to stop and if they threaten me / have a weapon then take appropriate action <--- that seems like the best thing in my opinion

[lrpettit]

PC §9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and t o the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
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:
TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS 61
(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.

[txgrifter]

Thanks All, I just noticed anther thread on the same issue a little bit down, I apologize for opening a new thread..

[thenick_ttu]

I have been looking through the law and I really suck at reading legal jargon..

PC §9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and t o the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.....

OP says he has read the law but has a hard time understanding legal jargon... another poster responds with the legal jargon OP was most likely reading in the first place??

ETA: Maybe the smilie was a little overboard. It was likely an honest mistake but I did find it quite funny. Maybe this one is more appropriate.

[Abraham]

Legalese is Chinese algebra to me too...

[knotquiteawake]

I wouldn't shoot the perp even if justified. Material things aren't worth the legal headache.

This is the personal decision I've made as well. I'll call the cops, be a good witness, and so on. However, get near me or my family or threaten our safety then It will have to be different, the police might not be the quickest option to save us.

[Blandtastic]

My rule of thumb is to only use deadly force when my life or another person's life is in immediate jeopardy. Use it as an absolute last resort.

I would caution anyone against taking human life. It makes a hell of a mess, will live in your memories forever and is guaranteed to attract all kinds of official notice that is bound to be unpleasant. It's just not worth it 99% of the time IMHO.

[lrpettit]

So presumably there could be three different answers, one legal, one moral and one practical.
1. In summary, if you catch someone burglarizing your vehicle, and deadly force is the only way to stop him, I read it that you can use deadly force if you believe the property can't be recovered any other way (whatever that means). (Obviously the law is more explicit than this summary).
2. Some people might maintain that it is morally incorrect to kill someone for stealing property.
3. If you shoot someone (even if it is justified), you're going to go through a lot of crap and probably end up paying some legal fees. It's probably not worth it over a $150 radar detector.

[bdickens]

I wouldn't shoot the perp even if justified. Material things aren't worth the legal headache.

Well now, how about if those material things are either a) your livelihood, like the tools with which you make your living and feed your family, or b) rare and extremely difficult to replace like your left-handed Gibson Flying V?

[G26ster]

My rule if I see someone stealing property from me is to ask myself, "what would I do if I DIDN'T have a CHL. Answer is always the same. Call the cops.

As we specialize here in "What If's," what if you confront him from a safe distance, he raises his hands, backs up slowly behind your Jeep (you're certainly not going to shoot i would hope), ducks down (and whilst there draws his handgun, which is not visible to you)? Now we have what might be called a "situation." What if he chooses to shoot his way to safety, from a position behind or alongside your Jeep, and he just happens to be a better shot than you, or just luckier. Then we have what we would call a tragedy for you and your family - forever, over a radar detector. MHO.

[CainA]

I wouldn't shoot the perp even if justified. Material things aren't worth the legal headache.

Well now, how about if those material things are either a) your livelihood, like the tools with which you make your living and feed your family, or b) rare and extremely difficult to replace like your left-handed Gibson Flying V?

Insurance.

[txgrifter]

Thanks all, I agree, it is not worth shooting someone over a radar detector.. and I am not advocating that. I just wanted to see what others would do if they were in same situation.. I don't want to shoot anyone, I don't want to get shot.. I don't want to deal with it honestly, it is something that has been going on over and over in my head.. 'what if' what if i went out side and caught him since it was in my work parking lot I cannot carry so I probaly would have called cops if i saw it yesterday..

thanks again all