TexasCHLforum.com

zero4o3 wrote:

RPBrown wrote:I would do as stated above and also get a picture of the thief.

Personally, I might even hold them with a well placed boot while they are under the car.

However, you could not shoot unless it were dark and in your drive I think is how the law reads.

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:

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means;

I would say that should cover you.

keep in mind that with this type of crime, your normally dealing with a group, it will be at least 2 people if not 3.

I would take the safe route not approach the car and look for the pickup truck they are going to load it in and get a plate number

Unfortunately, we cannot just pick a part of the law to abide by. To be justified in using deadly force to protect property, you must also meet one of the elements of 9.42(2):

9.42(2) wrote:(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

Cutting my car apart for the parts is burglary.
9.42(2)(A) is met, IMO.

RoyGBiv wrote:Cutting my car apart for the parts is burglary.
9.42(2)(A) is met, IMO.

Not burglary. Burglary is unlawful and forcible entry of a building. Cutting your car apart to remove parts is theft.

Crossfire wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Cutting my car apart for the parts is burglary.
9.42(2)(A) is met, IMO.

Not burglary. Burglary is unlawful and forcible entry of a building. Cutting your car apart to remove parts is theft.

Thanks for shattering my blissful ignorance.

Crossfire wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Cutting my car apart for the parts is burglary.
9.42(2)(A) is met, IMO.

Not burglary. Burglary is unlawful and forcible entry of a building. Cutting your car apart to remove parts is theft.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /PE.30.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 30.04. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES.
(a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he breaks into or enters a vehicle or any part of a vehicle with intent to commit any felony or theft.

(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:

(1) any part of the body; or

(2) any physical object connected with the body.

OK, then. I stand corrected. Good enough.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Crossfire wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Cutting my car apart for the parts is burglary.
9.42(2)(A) is met, IMO.

Not burglary. Burglary is unlawful and forcible entry of a building. Cutting your car apart to remove parts is theft.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /PE.30.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 30.04. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES.
(a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he breaks into or enters a vehicle or any part of a vehicle with intent to commit any felony or theft.

(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:

(1) any part of the body; or

(2) any physical object connected with the body.

Burglary of a motor vehicle is covered in a different part of the penal code than burglary. The state would have included burglary of a vehicle in the deadly force stautes if it were covered. They did not, they just included burglary, which is defined as:

Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault...."

if burglary of a motor vehicle is covered, by that reasoning deadly force would also be justified for burglary of a coin operated machine (Sec. 30.03)
IMHO I do not believe that to be the case.
BUT just to be sure, I called my attorney...and he also believes that the staute just covers burglary (habitation, building) and NOT of a vehicle. (and SURELY not of a coin operated machine)

First time poster, if you are not a budding criminal who wants to know if I will shoot him during his career, or if you are not a Brady bunch troll, welcome.

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

§ 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.

As others here have said, if you flee away from me you should be ok unless it is night when all bets are off due to the law allowing me to not have to guess what threats the darkness may be hiding. Now if during your fleeing you come towards me in a threatening manner or you wield a weapon which may seriously injure or kill me, then one of us may have a bad outcome. I would rather be judged by 12 than be helped "out" by 6.

MasterOfNone wrote:

zero4o3 wrote:

RPBrown wrote:I would do as stated above and also get a picture of the thief.

Personally, I might even hold them with a well placed boot while they are under the car.

However, you could not shoot unless it were dark and in your drive I think is how the law reads.

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:

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means;

I would say that should cover you.

keep in mind that with this type of crime, your normally dealing with a group, it will be at least 2 people if not 3.

I would take the safe route not approach the car and look for the pickup truck they are going to load it in and get a plate number

Unfortunately, we cannot just pick a part of the law to abide by. To be justified in using deadly force to protect property, you must also meet one of the elements of 9.42(2):

9.42(2) wrote:(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

I was under the impression taht you only had to meet one of the three

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 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

are you saying that to abide by 9.42 you have to meet all 3 requriements? I could have just misunderstood how it was worded

zero4o3 wrote:are you saying that to abide by 9.42 you have to meet all 3 requriements? I could have just misunderstood how it was worded

The way it reads is.... 1 AND 2 AND 3.

re: Burglary v Burglary of a MV... So now I'm back to "uncertain"..

In all seriousness, call 911. Try to get pics. On the other hand........Might be an interesting moment to get a flat tire........I did NOT say that! Of course, if you can tell which vehicle is his, it might be even more interesting to take the keys (chances are it's close by with the engine running). If the perp comes out from under the car after you, with your converter in his hands, is it considered a weapon? Sorry, I can't help it. This one just has too many fun aspects.......

Ready5 wrote:what are the rights of a CHL

Same as anyone else...?

Ready5 wrote:what would be the best course of action

Depends on your training, experience, and comfort level with confrontation. It is for each person to decide. For the average person, I would not recommend confronting them. Get back and call 911. I would probably lean towards getting involved, if not accompanied by wife, kids, etc.

RoyGBiv wrote:

zero4o3 wrote:are you saying that to abide by 9.42 you have to meet all 3 requriements? I could have just misunderstood how it was worded

The way it reads is.... 1 AND 2 AND 3.

Right. Since each section (1, 2, and 3) each end with "and," the following section must be satisfied. Otherwise, if only 1 had to be met, any justification for force would justify deadly force, which is clearly not correct.

RoyGBiv wrote:re: Burglary v Burglary of a MV... So now I'm back to "uncertain"..

Because burglary (30.02) and burglary of vehicles (30.04) are at the same level of numbering (xx.xx), they are separate in the code. The only way burglary of vehicles would be considered a subset of burglary is if it was numbered within 30.02, for example 30.02(d). The confusion comes from one crime's name containing the other's name.

RoyGBiv wrote:

zero4o3 wrote:are you saying that to abide by 9.42 you have to meet all 3 requriements? I could have just misunderstood how it was worded

The way it reads is.... 1 AND 2 AND 3.

re: Burglary v Burglary of a MV... So now I'm back to "uncertain"..

Thats fair, I think I need to slow myself down reading through these some times

Burglary is a felony,

Burglary of a vehicle is a class A misdemeanor.