CHL Holders fire on Suspects

[WildBill]

Stealing property out of someone's vehicle is not "theft" - it's burglary.
...
Question is whether "burglary of vehicle" is same as "burglary" for purposes of PC 9.42 justification. And seems the police believe it is.

I've seen the discussions on this board on the topic of burglary versus burglary of vehicle. I personally conclude that burglary of vehicle is not an act covered under PC §9.42(2)(A)-(B) where "burglary" is referenced.

The arguments advanced by srothstein were compelling, in my opinion. You are welcome to reach your own conclusion.

Once again, I hope the CHL's are not charged.

IMO, they are two separate crimes and PC §9.42(2)(A)-(B) does not apply to "Burglary of a Vehicle".

[A-R]

Stealing property out of someone's vehicle is not "theft" - it's burglary.

Actually, no it's not. Burglary is the act of entering 'with the intent to commit theft' or a felony. The theft is actually separate.

Keith, you're correct and I typed too quickly (on an iphone ) and didn't review what I typed. Meant that the totality of the circumstances of this case do not MERELY hinge on "theft" but also include "burglary of a vehicle" (2 separate, but related, crimes) ...

Basically you have:
Burglary of a vehicle - Class A misdemeanor
+
Theft of firearms - State Jail Felony - PC 31.03 Theft (e)(4)(C)

Thus the possibility of a defense under PC 9.42 for "burglary" - caveat that I don't honestly know the "correct" answer whether "burglary of vehicle" is included in the justifications provided under PC 9.42 (2)(A)

I, for one, would not want my future freedom to hinge upon the extremely fine line possibly dividing "burglary" from "burglary of a vehicle" - but I wanted to just offer th expanded point that their justification does not necessarily rest solely on "theft during the nighttime".

As always, IANAL ... just a guy who can read, infer, decipher, and speculate

[recaffeination]

If the DA wants to prosecute somebody, he should prosecute the thieves, not their victims.