Deadly Force, Theft At Night, Burglary, etc.

[vjallen75]

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.

Let's say you pay $1,000 for a TV, most minimum deductibles on homeowners insurance is 1%. Let's say your dwelling (home) has an estimated replacement cost at $179,000, your deductible will be $1,790. That's not even worth it to file a claim, IMO. I only want to bring this into the argument because it was stated by:

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).

Based off of my description you could not replace your TV by other means (insurance) because it would fall under your deductible, based off of my scenario. IANAL, and I'm not saying it's ok to shoot someone for stealing your TV.

[bblhd672]

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.

Let's say you pay $1,000 for a TV, most minimum deductibles on homeowners insurance is 1%. Let's say your dwelling (home) has an estimated replacement cost at $179,000, your deductible will be $1,790. That's not even worth it to file a claim, IMO. I only want to bring this into the argument because it was stated by:

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).

Based off of my description you could not replace your TV by other means (insurance) because it would fall under your deductible, based off of my scenario. IANAL, and I'm not saying it's ok to shoot someone for stealing your TV.

Well said.

[MechAg94]

I don't have a lot of moral issues with shooting thieves. However, if you walk up on someone who is running away with your TV, you run the risk of prosecution by shooting them. Even if you win or it is dismissed, there is a legal cost to consider. You also need to think about where you live and what the local prosecutor is likely to do. There are some jurisdictions that are not friendly to self defense. Those might be few in Texas.

In the case stated above where someone had been burgled several times, the cost of the burglaries was likely pretty high. Remember it isn't just the stuff they take, but the damage to doors and windows that can be expensive to fix. Along with the mental stress of knowing someone broke into your home. If they get away with it once, they will be back to burgle your house again or a neighbor. The cost of theft is almost always higher than most people really consider.

[KD5NRH]

In the case stated above where someone had been burgled several times, the cost of the burglaries was likely pretty high. Remember it isn't just the stuff they take, but the damage to doors and windows that can be expensive to fix. Along with the mental stress of knowing someone broke into your home. If they get away with it once, they will be back to burgle your house again or a neighbor. The cost of theft is almost always higher than most people really consider.

This, and the simple fact that if they get away with a crime a few times, they'll likely up the ante at some point: they start out stealing stuff from open porches, then on to car burglary, then unoccupied houses, and eventually move from burglary to armed home invasion, or worse.

[Abraham]

How many of you who claim it best to passively stand-by if burgled have been touched by crime?

I have been burglarized both home and vehicle. I felt psychologically raped. It took me a long time to get over the crimes committed against me, most especially having my home broken into, property stolen and the house left a wreck.

What other crimes are you willing to allow because to stand up for yourselves risks litigation?

Those who simplistically go with the "it's only a T.V., let them have it" make me shudder with contempt.

It's never that clean and simple.

I do have to wonder what you're doing on a forum where most won't passively lie down when confronted by criminals.

Perhaps, you come from a liberal state where they've convinced you to be and stay a victim?

Feel like it's better to let criminals ripping you off at your home no less and you just stand by quaking in your boots, because to act, is to risk getting into some form of trouble because you stood up against a home intruding thief?

Wow, just wow...

[rotor]

How many of you who claim it best to passively stand-by if burgled have been touched by crime?

I have been burglarized both home and vehicle. I felt psychologically raped. It took me a long time to get over the crimes committed against me, most especially having my home broken into, property stolen and the house left a wreck.

What other crimes are you willing to allow because to stand up for yourselves risks litigation?

Those who simplistically go with the "it's only a T.V., let them have it" make me shudder with contempt.

It's never that clean and simple.

I do have to wonder what you're doing on a forum where most won't passively lie down when confronted by criminals.

Perhaps, you come from a liberal state where they've convinced you to be and stay a victim?

Feel like it's better to let criminals ripping you off at your home no less and you just stand by quaking in your boots, because to act, is to risk getting into some form of trouble because you stood up against a home intruding thief?

Wow, just wow...

I agree 100% as I too have had my house broken into. Burglar alarm sent him running but expensive to fix the doors, etc. You never feel the same about your home after someone has broken in. Next door neighbor tried to confront my burglar and lucky she was not shot. My home is my castle. The argument that insurance will replace things is ridiculous. Insurance does not fix the emotional scars.

[Abraham]

Caliber,

You ended your lecture with: "Both choices are valid and there is no wrong answer"

Spoken like a true liberal.

I disagree with your assertion.

I won't stand by while a criminal is committing a crime against me, so yeah, there is a wrong answer.

Please, peddle that type thinking on some anti-gun, weak kneed, "we're all just victims here" type site.

The idea I should be more afraid of what the law will do to act against me for standing up to a criminal, is well, criminal...

[Jusme]

I am not going to check my watch to see if the sun is in a particular location, to protect what I have worked for. I refer back to the case I was looking for(and still have not found)
The owner, was not in his residence, in fact, he lived in another house. the burglary occurred during the day. He notified police, before driving over himself. The thieves were exiting the house with his property, and he shot three of them outside the door, from in front of the house, using his vehicle to steady the rifle. He was not charged with a crime, the case went to the grand jury and they returned a no-bill citing that the homeowner had the right to protect his property.
Being fearful of repercussions from defending my property, is not my concern, no more so, than repercussions of defending my life, would be. The State of Texas, recognizes property rights, and very few people have been charged for defending their property, and in most of those cases there were extenuating circumstances.

Everyone will have to make their own decisions if ever faced with that scenario, but I will do whatever is necessary to protect what is mine, and it has nothing to do with the monetary value of my TV. JMHO

[twomillenium]

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

Do you have a source for that? Ethically that can be argued, but I certainly don't see that in the statutes.

Texas has the Castle Doctrine for a reason - don't put others at risk if you don't want to put yourself at a potentially greater risk.

PC §9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

To use force against another is illegal to do so, laws are written that provide a justification for the non-adherence of those laws.
If you use force and the courts get involved, YOU will have to prove the justification. Some situations are easier to prove than others. Innocent until proven guilty plays into this because you have been charged with a crime an now the state must prove you did the action in question. However, you are provided with reasons that justify your actions and you are given the chance to convince your peers that you were justified. If you had other legal remedies then that may be hard to prove your justification.
I am not an attorney and not only is this not legal advise but it is merely my opinion.

[bblhd672]

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

Do you have a source for that? Ethically that can be argued, but I certainly don't see that in the statutes.

Texas has the Castle Doctrine for a reason - don't put others at risk if you don't want to put yourself at a potentially greater risk.

PC §9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

To use force against another is illegal to do so, laws are written that provide a justification for the non-adherence of those laws.
If you use force and the courts get involved, YOU will have to prove the justification. Some situations are easier to prove than others. Innocent until proven guilty plays into this because you have been charged with a crime an now the state must prove you did the action in question. However, you are provided with reasons that justify your actions and you are given the chance to convince your peers that you were justified. If you had other legal remedies then that may be hard to prove your justification.
I am not an attorney and not only is this not legal advise but it is merely my opinion.

Justification? I am stopping you from causing me imminent harm by your stealing of my property. "Harm" doesn't necessarily only mean physical harm against my body.

[Mike S]

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).

Actually, the 'AND' in 2(B) invokes 3. There's a 3(A), which you reference, 'OR' 3(B). The actor must reasonably believe either 3(A) OR 3(B) exists in order to use deadly force.

I'm not a lawyer, but in my plain English reading of the statue there's no disqualification of using deadly force based on having insurance. 3(A) requires that the "land/property" can't be protected/recovered by any other means (being 'replaced' isn't listed in statute). Or, under 3(B) deadly force may be justified if a lesser amount of force would substantially put the actor at risk of death/serious bodily injury.

[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).

Actually, the 'AND' in 2(B) invokes 3. There's a 3(A), which you reference, 'OR' 3(B). The actor must reasonably believe either 3(A) OR 3(B) exists in order to use deadly force.

I'm not a lawyer, but in my plain English reading of the statue there's no disqualification of using deadly force based on having insurance. 3(A) requires that the "land/property" can't be protected/recovered by any other means (being 'replaced' isn't listed in statute). Or, under 3(B) deadly force may be justified if a lesser amount of force would substantially put the actor at risk of death/serious bodily injury.

I'm not a lawyer either, and this protection of property statute is something I've always been somewhat uneasy about. I'd certainly attempt to detain somebody who was burglarizing my house, but unless there was a threat to me or another person, I don't believe I would shoot anyone over a TV. That's not advice for anyone else, it's just how I believe I would handle that situation.

When I first responded I was basically summarizing what my first CHL instructor (15 years ago) said. Now we all know CHL instructors certainly have interpretations that may not be 100% correct. His feeling seemed to be property replaced by other means could be satisfied by insurance. Something like a dog or family heirloom can't be replaced adequately by insurance. His bottom line advice was though when dealing with a scenario was you'd likely not face any criminal consequences, but whatever you are shooting somebody for better be important to you (I recall him saying $20-50K in legal fees).

[Ruark]

I always wondered just how far this language can be applied. According to this, if you see some kid swiping your lawn sprinkler after dark, you can blow his head off. That can't be right.

[miljet]

According to this, if you see some kid swiping your lawn sprinkler after dark, you can blow his head off. That can't be right.

And why not? I am not the one who decided the kid's life was only worth the cost of a sprinkler, he was.