"Sliders" a growing problem

[StewNTexas]

I guess I am getting too old to read this type of crap.

Why is everyone spending time worrying about locking your car each and every time you get out of it? When I grew up, the rule was if it is not your, keep your hands off. Not just off, but OFF and away from it. I support dropping the people reaching in.

To show how twisted my thinking has become, what about bringing back the stocks. Catch someone doing something wrong (hitting a woman, abusing a child, stealing something, etc.) slap them into stocks on the courthouse lawn. Keep them locked up from 24 to 120 hours, based on a sliding scale. When I say locked up, I mean locked up. Rain, shine, cold, heat. No bathroom breaks, only unlocked three times a day for 15 minutes for meals. If you make a mess in your pants, you just live with it until your sentence expires. Other people are free to stop by and make fun of you, but now be allowed less than ten feet. Can't have anyone slip someone some extra water.

You go through this, you might change your mind about how you act, and not want to go through it again. If you screw up again, double the number of hours you spent there the first time. Every screw up equals a doubling of the time.

I would also suggest that any lawyer that somehow gets a person off, and that person becomes a repeat offender within a 120 day period, must also spend the same amount of time enjoying the same facilities.

Wow, looks like I need a nap, or a few adult beverages.

[RoyGBiv]

I think if we really want to be responsible in our use of DF, then the question is better framed "do I absolutely have to shoot this person doing XYZ"
(all my opinion)

I'm just curious where the hard stops are...

Count me among those that would not shoot to stop a fleeing burglar (I'm fairly well insured for most things), but it's always good to know (with certainty) that if some extraordinary situation emerged, where the boundaries exactly are...

So... Are 30.01, 30.02 and 30.03 all and each included in the 9.42 definition of "Burglary"?

[gigag04]

I think if we really want to be responsible in our use of DF, then the question is better framed "do I absolutely have to shoot this person doing XYZ"
(all my opinion)

I'm just curious where the hard stops are...

Count me among those that would not shoot to stop a fleeing burglar (I'm fairly well insured for most things), but it's always good to know (with certainty) that if some extraordinary situation emerged, where the boundaries exactly are...

So... Are 30.01, 30.02 and 30.03 all and each included in the 9.42 definition of "Burglary"?

I think when we can find ambiguity in the code, or LE policy, or legal interpretation....there are no hard stops. It would make LE OIS, and Self Defense shootings much easier to overlay an answer key to determine wrongdoing.

I also think the ambiguity of whether bmv is included in burglary (bmv is only non-felony burglary), would be decided in a court. I know you wouldn't disagree, but our world is setup where people that can successfully navigate the gray operate with common sense, will do well in these situations.

[Keith B]

I think if we really want to be responsible in our use of DF, then the question is better framed "do I absolutely have to shoot this person doing XYZ"
(all my opinion)

I'm just curious where the hard stops are...

Count me among those that would not shoot to stop a fleeing burglar (I'm fairly well insured for most things), but it's always good to know (with certainty) that if some extraordinary situation emerged, where the boundaries exactly are...

So... Are 30.01, 30.02 and 30.03 all and each included in the 9.42 definition of "Burglary"?

No. 9.42 for burglary only pertains to 30.02. Burglary of a vehicle (30.04) is only a Misdemeanor (dsicounting theft from or of the vehicle or the vehicle being occupied). Where use of deadly force plays into a vehcile is under 9.32 for defense of person if the vehicle is occupied and only relates to the crime committed against the person, not the vehicle itself.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

[AlaskanInTexas]

So... Are 30.01, 30.02 and 30.03 all and each included in the 9.42 definition of "Burglary"?

I think you mean 30.02, 30.03, and 30.04. There is an unpublished case that weakly implies that burglary of a vehicle (30.04) is included within the meaning of burglary under 9.42. Here is a quote:

"In this case, appellant concedes that the incident did not take place in the nighttime.FN7 Further, appellant does not argue, and we find no evidence, that this case involved an arson, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Therefore, appellant had to establish that he reasonably believed that deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent a burglary. A person commits burglary of a motor vehicle if, without effective consent of the owner, he breaks into or enters the vehicle or any part of the vehicle with intent to commit any felony or theft. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.04(a) (Vernon 1994). “Enter” means to intrude any part of the body or any physical object connected to the body. Id. at section 30.04(b)."

Spencer v. State, Not Reported in S.W.2d, 1997 WL 701324, Tex.App.-Dallas,1997.

[AlaskanInTexas]

No. 9.42 for burglary only pertains to 30.02. Burglary of a vehicle (30.04) is only a Misdemeanor (dsicounting theft from or of the vehicle or the vehicle being occupied). Where use of deadly force plays into a vehcile is under 9.32 for defense of person if the vehicle is occupied and only relates to the crime committed against the person, not the vehicle itself.

While the law is certainly ambiguous, I see nothing that supports this statement. I also see nothing in the law that limits your right to protect property to those situations where the actor committed a felony.

[MasterOfNone]

No. 9.42 for burglary only pertains to 30.02. Burglary of a vehicle (30.04) is only a Misdemeanor (dsicounting theft from or of the vehicle or the vehicle being occupied). Where use of deadly force plays into a vehcile is under 9.32 for defense of person if the vehicle is occupied and only relates to the crime committed against the person, not the vehicle itself.

While the law is certainly ambiguous, I see nothing that supports this statement. I also see nothing in the law the limits your right to protect property to those situations where the actor committed a felony.

9.42 provides "burglary" as a justification. "Burglary" is defined in 30.02. Nothing in the statute indicates that 30.04 (or 30.03) is included as part of "burglary."

Contrast this to "robbery" and "aggravated robbery." 29.03 ("Aggravated robbery") states "A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and...," indicating that committing "aggravated robbery" includes committing "robbery." "Burglary of vehicles" has no such inclusion.

[Keith B]

No. 9.42 for burglary only pertains to 30.02. Burglary of a vehicle (30.04) is only a Misdemeanor (dsicounting theft from or of the vehicle or the vehicle being occupied). Where use of deadly force plays into a vehcile is under 9.32 for defense of person if the vehicle is occupied and only relates to the crime committed against the person, not the vehicle itself.

While the law is certainly ambiguous, I see nothing that supports this statement. I also see nothing in the law that limits your right to protect property to those situations where the actor committed a felony.

Burglary and Burglary of a motor vehicle in istelf are two different things and have sperate statutes. The portion that comes into play is either occupied OR with the intent to commit a felony or theft. If they were all inclusive, then you could also use deadly force to stop the burglary of of a coin operated machine (30.03).

[AlaskanInTexas]

No. 9.42 for burglary only pertains to 30.02. Burglary of a vehicle (30.04) is only a Misdemeanor (dsicounting theft from or of the vehicle or the vehicle being occupied). Where use of deadly force plays into a vehcile is under 9.32 for defense of person if the vehicle is occupied and only relates to the crime committed against the person, not the vehicle itself.

While the law is certainly ambiguous, I see nothing that supports this statement. I also see nothing in the law that limits your right to protect property to those situations where the actor committed a felony.

Burglary and Burglary of a motor vehicle in istelf are two different things and have sperate statutes. The portion that comes into play is either occupied OR with the intent to commit a felony or theft. If they were all inclusive, then you could also use deadly force to stop the burglary of of a coin operated machine (30.03).

I think the shortcoming in that analysis is that 9.42 does not explicitly incorporate 30.02. You are assuming that the Legislature meant the narrow definition of "burglary" contained in 30.02, instead of the three burglary offenses in the burglary chapter of the penal code or some other civil or common law definition. I totally see your argument - and it is a good one (especially if you look to the separate references to robbery and aggravated robbery, instead of one general robbery reference) - but the law is not as black and white as your original response suggested. In any event, as I noted above, it appears that at least one court concluded that burglary of a vehicle constituted burglary for purposes of 9.42.

[RoyGBiv]

KeithB & AIT, thanks for the analysis... Looks like we all agree where the point of contention is, but without any clear case law it looks like there is sufficient ambiguity in the law that it could go either way... "Beyond edge of certainty" on this particular issue..

Caveat Actor

[apostate]

After reading the title I was gonna ask, "How are little hamburgers and sandwiches a problem?"

With the quotation marks, I was thinking 90s TV show.

[JJVP]

[youtube][/youtube]

[Blindref757]

A couple of random thoughts.
1. If they grab my backpack with my Macbook and iPad, we are talking about a significant chunk of change...and with a $1000 deductible on my homeowners insurance, and all of my personal info and passwords that are stored in there...we are talking about a significant amount of money and hassle...but probably a lot cheaper than thousands of billable hours at Mark O'Mara's going rate. Probably not worth it, but there would most likely be a full video of the entire account...so maybe a no-bill by the grand jury. Still, neither option is as easy as locking the door.

2. How dangerous is it to fire a gun in the proximity of gas pumps? If a cell phone is enough to spark vapors, what are the dangers of a 9mm muzzle blast? If it's life or death, it is probably worth the risk. If it is a few thousand dollars of property...I think I'll take my chances with the detectives solving the crime and paying the deductible.

Great thing about this forum...you think about this stuff pretty deeply!

[ddurkof]

There seems to be a bit of fantasy of catching these guys in the act and 10 ringing them. The reality hit when you sit down with a good criminal defense attorney who tells you, "After talking to the DA, I can get you a plead for five years in prison." It has been 1.5 years since that you shot little Johnny, whose friends claim he did it on a dare and the was going to give it back to you. You have spent several weeks in jail before making your $100K bond. You have sold every thing that you can, and your attorney is telling you that five years is the best he can get, and by the way he needs another $10,000.00. Oh, you want to take it to trial? He says that he will need another $100K. He will need to hire an jury expert for Voir Dire and a use of force expert to explain that you acted appropriately. But you have become a political hot potato, because little Johnny was not just another thug, but his family has political influence and his dad is out for your neck. AND he has the money and time to make it happen. When you ask your attorney how much more money is it going to cost, he shrugs and asks "How badly do you want to stay out of prison?"

You realize that you should have just locked the door and put the packages into the trunk, shooting little Johnnie was A BAD IDEA. HE WAS NOT A THREAT, thief yes, but not a threat.

Yea, the world is that screwed up.

[RoyGBiv]

Yea, the world is that screwed up.

Its Bush's fault, of course.