Deadly Force, Theft At Night, Burglary, etc.

[Caliber]

It seems like this may have already been discussed, but I don't recall how this goes. So....

Deadly force can be used to prevent burglary, robbery, arson, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.

Let's say you come home from work during the day and find someone walking out the front door with your television. You cannot use deadly force because (1) the burglary has already occurred (you did not "prevent" it) and (2) the theft is not at night. However, you can display your gun to cause apprehension (which is "force", but not deadly force).

Do you agree or disagree?

[bblhd672]

From Texas CHL-16 pages 37-38:

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:
(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 night¬time 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.

PC9.42 (2)(B) appears to indicate that you are allowed to use deadly force to prevent the criminal from escaping with your property.

[ralewis]

From Texas CHL-16 pages 37-38:

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:
(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 night¬time 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.

PC9.42 (2)(B) appears to indicate that you are allowed to use deadly force to prevent the criminal from escaping with your property.

)

Don't forget the 'and' in 2(B) which invokes 3 A. . I think it could be argued you can replace the TV by other means (insurance).

[carlson1]

When you start talking about using deadly force at night (which makes no since for a theft to me) you need to remember the definition of "night."
"Nighttime" means the period beginning one-half hour after sunset and ending one-half hour before sunrise.

[o b juan]

"Nighttime" means the period beginning one-half hour after sunset and ending one-half hour before sunrise."

Yes indeedy. We had a drug case kicked out Lin S. La Near the atchafaya basin because it was pitch black (because of fog)

and it was 20 minutes after official sunrise and we went for a night time search.

we were more careful after that

[o b juan]

Don't forget the 'and' in 2(B) which invokes 3 A. . I think it could be argued you can replace the TV by other means (insuranc

and usually when some one is escaping they are going away from you not comming towards you. Fleeing

[twomillenium]

One must remember the most important rule. Force can only be used as a last resort.

[casp625]

From Texas CHL-16 pages 37-38:

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:
(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 night¬time 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.

PC9.42 (2)(B) appears to indicate that you are allowed to use deadly force to prevent the criminal from escaping with your property.

)

Don't forget the 'and' in 2(B) which invokes 3 A. . I think it could be argued you can replace the TV by other means (insurance).

Replacing property via insurance is not the same as recovering the actual property being stolen.

[ralewis]

From Texas CHL-16 pages 37-38:

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:
(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 night¬time 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.

PC9.42 (2)(B) appears to indicate that you are allowed to use deadly force to prevent the criminal from escaping with your property.

)

Don't forget the 'and' in 2(B) which invokes 3 A. . I think it could be argued you can replace the TV by other means (insurance).

Replacing property via insurance is not the same as recovering the actual property being stolen.

Technically I am sure you are correct. And I don't think you'd go to jail. I could imagine I'd attempt to detain, but I can't imagine pulling the trigger over a TV -- might even end up with a better TV when it's all said and done with an insurance claim.

[Jusme]

I've been trying to do a search, for a case that occurred in the 90's where a man owned two homes, and the one he was not living in, had been burglarized several time. He put in an alarm system, which notified him that the house was being burglarized during the day. He drove to the house, took out a Marlin lever action 444, and dropped the burglars on the porch coming out with stolen property. I think he only killed one but shot three of them. He was no-billed.

It happened, I think, in Mckinney, but I am unable to find it. If someone locates the story please post a link.

[bblhd672]

Don't forget the 'and' in 2(B) which invokes 3 A. . I think it could be argued you can replace the TV by other means (insurance).

That opens up the ability of prosecutors to take away your ability to protect your property by stating "well, you have homeowners insurance, why did you have to shoot that man in order to keep him from stealing your property?"

Replacing property via insurance is not the same as recovering the actual property being stolen.

The ability to"recover" my property by making a claim on insurance, paying the deductible and buying new is not the intent of the law. Setting a precedent like that would make the criminal element very happy by taking away their risk of being shot when they steal your property.

Now, I'm not saying that a $300-$400 tv is worth the hassle of dropping a guy on your front porch. Most likely the criminal is going to drop your tv and run anyway.

[KD5NRH]

Replacing property via insurance is not the same as recovering the actual property being stolen.

This, and the fact that would essentially be saying "if you can afford to buy another one, you lose the right to defend this one." Insurance is just a means to spread the cost out a bit in the form of increased premiums.

[Abraham]

I hear arguments about what a poor decision it is to shoot a burglar almost anytime, but especially during the day. Material items can be replaced, blah, blah, blah.

If you're this wish-washy, because a day time burglar is just trying to make a living and wouldn't cause any other sort of trouble, like attacking if you happen upon him while he's in the midst of burgling or no, he'd never consider vandalizing your home, or...?

So, what to do?

Put up a notice that says: Burglars will be allowed to burgle during daylight hours without being interfered.

Makes sense, right?

[Caliber]

I hear arguments about what a poor decision it is to shoot a burglar almost anytime, but especially during the day. Material items can be replaced, blah, blah, blah.

If you're this wish-washy, because a day time burglar is just trying to make a living and wouldn't cause any other sort of trouble, like attacking if you happen upon him while he's in the midst of burgling or no, he'd never consider vandalizing your home, or...?

So, what to do?

Put up a notice that says: Burglars will be allowed to burgle during daylight hours without being interfered.

Makes sense, right?

Your point is well taken.

So, if you saw a person leaving your house with a TV, at night, you have two choices:
1. Shoot the guy and recover your TV. The risk is that you will have to defend yourself in court which certainly will not be inexpensive.
2. Let the guy have the TV, then drive up to Best Buy and buy another one at a fraction of the cost of #1.

Both choices are valid and there is no wrong answer.