Clear up a law for me please

[dpatterson]

IMO, I would be very leary or shooting at someone who was "fleeing", regardless of what anything says in print. This goes against all my reasons to use deadly force.
For one, I am no longer in danger and secondly if he is "fleeing" he probably has his back to me and NO WAY am I going to shoot in that situation.

Like I said IMO.... I work hard for my stuff but if some coward feels they need it more than I do... well... dont let me catch you in my house...

DP

[Glockamolie]

Technically, it is what you think it is, and technically, your instructor was wrong. As stated, not a good practice. If someone has a van backed up to my house loading it, they'll have to drive away on four flat tires.

[Commander]

Here is the law about use of force at nighttime...This was covered in my CHL renewal class. The instructor highly recommended NOT to use deadly force in protection of property, day or night.


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
TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS 53
(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.

[Glockamolie]

Here is the law about use of force at 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.

That was the part he was asking about. I stand by my statement.

[flintknapper]

Here is the law about use of force at 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.

That was the part he was asking about. I stand by my statement.

We sometimes read only that part of the Law (penal code) that suits our belief. In this case, it is important to notice that one little word (AND), and then read what follows it. (he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means)

God forbid you should ever have to shoot someone, but if you do, (as concerns the law) you will want as many conditions, principles and precepts in place as possible.

The emotions evoked over having one's property stolen is more than understandable. I'm with you on that part.

Have a great weekend.

Flint.

[Commander]

I agree with you. I was pointing out the section of law that spoke of nighttime.

[age_ranger]

I can understand if they're in your home, but if they're fleeing, I think you'd be hard pressed to justify killing someone to get back a DVD player regardless of how the law is spelled out.

[Wilson]

A number of years back the owner of a car stepped out on his front porch to observe three individuals removing his wheel & tires and loading them in their vehicle. He killed one put a bullet in the spine of another (now a paraplegic) with the other later being arrested by the police. The DA presented the case to a Dallas Grand Jury. Upon having the text of the law read to them, they immediately No Billed the shooter.

Not saying I would have shot them but the guy who lived in the Greenville area had his rims & tires stolen previously (twice IIRC).

[JohnKSa]

Important to remember this little statement near the beginning of the deadly force chapter.

§ 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

In other words, the fact that deadly force is legally justified and you are safe from prosecution does NOT mean that you won't be sued in civil court.

You will NOT come out ahead if you avoid losing your VCR (or rims, or even your car) by shooting someone and they (or their surviving family members) sue you in civil court.

[Steve #1]

"Even if you drive up to your house and there is a moving van, and people are carrying all of your stuff out of your house and putting it in the moving van, you cannot draw your weapon until they attack you with deadly force."

Drive away and call the cops. Worst case scenario, you'll be out the deductible on you home owners insurance.

You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.


Like Flint pointed out, the important part is often over looked.
(he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means)

Picture yourself at the defence table as the prosecutor explains to the jury that you had a cell phone and could have called police, and how the police catch bad guys and recover stolen property every day.

Then there is the civil liability......

Not worth it in my book.

[Glockamolie]

Here is the law about use of force at 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.

That was the part he was asking about. I stand by my statement.

We sometimes read only that part of the Law (penal code) that suits our belief. In this case, it is important to notice that one little word (AND), and then read what follows it. (he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means)

God forbid you should ever have to shoot someone, but if you do, (as concerns the law) you will want as many conditions, principles and precepts in place as possible.

The emotions evoked over having one's property stolen is more than understandable. I'm with you on that part.

Have a great weekend.

Flint.

I wasn't arguing that it was a smart thing to do, or that ultimately a person would be in good shape legally if they were to do it. I was simply stating that the law stated "burglary" as one of the stipulations, and that "during the nighttime" wasn't a necessary part of it in that section of the law.

Here's the advice I'd give anyone: Don't use deadly force over property alone. Ever.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The use of "Deadly force" also constitutes brandishing your weapon, correct?

So say if somebody is hauling a bunch of my stuff out of my house, pulling my weapon just to scare them off would also be seen as using deadly force in the eyes of the law, correct?

Texas doesn't have a pure "brandishing" law as do some states. As for pulling a gun to thwart a burglary, this gets into the long discussion we had on the apparent conflict between TPC §9.04 that allows the threat of deadly fore when the actual use of deadly force wouldn't be available, and TPC §46.035(a) that prohibits a CHL from failing to conceal, unless the use of deadly force would be justified (TPC §46.035(h)). The [/i]McDermott[/i] case is a problem for CHL holders.

Chas.

Edited to add: Here is the link to the old TPC §9.04 thread. http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =mcdermott It's long and opinions changed (at least mine did), so don't draw any conclusions until you're read it all.

Chas.