IANAL, IANLEO and IDNPOOTV, but:
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.
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor 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
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
Sec. 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.
Maybe
all of us need to review the statutes.
I quit keeping BUGs in the cars for this kind of dilemma. The car is not worth killing over if I were to see a BG driving off with it, but with a BUG in the car it is almost mandatory I stop the theft. An iPhone laying on a counter, the hood of the car or whatever that is snatched and run away with is not worth shooting over either, IMHO.
BUT the law only requires a "reasonable" fear of serious bodily harm to employ deadly force. The display of deadly force "for the sole purpose of causing apprehension" is simply force. So:
1)If I am approached and I tell the guy to stop where he is and he continues to approach he is threatening force (intimidation is force). I used to be pretty good in the day but I'm now fat, bald, old and am not inclined to tap into my non-existent psychic abilities to sort out the motivations. Disparity of force becomes an issue for consideration.
2) I now display my weapon and tell him to stop where he is and he continues, apprehension has not been created and I can be "reasonably" sure he intends to do me harm. I am not going to wait until he comes within reach or displays a weapon because unless I get lucky, I'll likely lose the fight.
3) Under no circumstances will I allow them to lay a hand on me.
4) I will escalate more rapidly if my family is with me than if they are not.
Added in edit: If I pull a gun on someone who wants to
forcibly make a call on my iPhone (if that's all he wanted), I will likely change his mind and have presented an aggravated assault on my person. If he was intent on using force to get his phone call, he has escalated the encounter to one with potential and justifiably deadly consequences.
Cheers to that!
