Shooting looters

[Ruark]

When something like Houston happens, there's always lots of talk about shooting looters. I saw some guys holding ARs behind a big sign in some Houston neighborhood, guarding it. The sign said "U Loot, We Shoot." I'm sure a lot of us feel the same way.

But realistically, what would be the legal consequences of shooting a looter in that situation? If you see somebody kicking a door in or breaking a window and taking stuff, would that meet legal standards for the use of deadly force? Or are civic emergency situations like Houston (or Katrina) an exception to the rule?

[Beiruty]

When something like Houston happens, there's always lots of talk about shooting looters. I saw some guys holding ARs behind a big sign in some Houston neighborhood, guarding it. The sign said "U Loot, We Shoot." I'm sure a lot of us feel the same way.

But realistically, what would be the legal consequences of shooting a looter in that situation? If you see somebody kicking a door in or breaking a window and taking stuff, would that meet legal standards for the use of deadly force? Or are civic emergency situations like Houston (or Katrina) an exception to the rule?

Yes, it is justified if they were breaking into your property and someone is in that property. If they are burglarizing a residency.

The justified use of deadly force laws should have been explained thoroughly in the LTC class.

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 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.

[Beiruty]

Protecting the property:
Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 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.

[carlson1]

I do not remember the new channel or the Sheriff, but the young Sheriff was interviewed by the news. The Sheriff said "if you come to steal you will leave in a bag."

[Beiruty]

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 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;

(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.

[bblhd672]

Perhaps the legislature should add a new section to the code clearly stating that deadly force is allowed to defend property during a declared state of emergency.

[parabelum]

In Texas, if you loot i.e.burglarize you are subject to the use of deadly force against you.

[Oldgringo]

If you shoot someone for any reason anywhere, you are subject to legal action so, be prepared to defend your action/s with your time and your money. IANAL.

BTW, I think looters, especially in an instance such as this, should be shot on sight regardless of race, sex or age.

[nightmare69]

I would prefer capturing the looter and removing their dominant hand.

[Ruark]

In Texas, if you loot i.e.burglarize you are subject to the use of deadly force against you.

I don't think so, if it's somebody else's property and it's daylight. So if it's an emergency and you see a couple of punks throwing a brick through a window and grabbing stuff, you can raise your AR and legally kill them? I'm not so sure.

That would mean if you looked out your window and saw somebody prying your neighbor's window open, you could shoot him.

The law does say "....(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property...."

A public declaration by local law enforcement might legally cover this. There could be situations, however, where it was simply somebody trying to enter their own home trying to recover belongings. Would a shoot (by a stranger) be justified?

Interesting legal question.

[n5wmk]

I would prefer capturing the looter and removing their dominant hand.

Maybe put a ventilation hole in their dominant hand?

[ninjabread]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

[OlBill]

If you shoot someone for any reason anywhere, you are subject to legal action so, be prepared to defend your action/s with your time and your money. IANAL.

BTW, I think looters, especially in an instance such as this, should be shot on sight regardless of race, sex or age.

If there are no cops around to stop the looters, how will they know who stopped the looters?

It always comes out. It's a battle of wills, not wits.

[rotor]

Remember the armed home invasion in Canada where the homeowner wrestled the gun from the bad guys and shot one of them. Totally illegal in Canada and they are prosecuting the homeowner. Interesting comments though...

Shoot
Shovel
Shut up

I think in Texas it would be hard to find a jury that would convict but there is the legal expense.

[bayou]

It wouldn't be the criminal courts but the civil courts one would have to worry about...