Use of force question- aggravated robbery

[Lucky45]

I am new to the group and was wondering about use of force during a robbery. Scenario is that you are a victim of agg. robbery and of course you couldn't draw because it was a suprise, eg. in store, fast food, etc. When the actor goes to leave with your property, at what point does my legal use of force begin and end. In other words, can use it as he is leaving or do i just call the police and hope to recover my property. Plus if the actor is hit as he is running away, will I have another legal issue to deal with. Or do I have to wait til he draws on me after I have safely drawn my own weapon.

[seamusTX]

Here is the law:

PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have
retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of ... robbery, or aggravated robbery.
PC §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.

While I am not a lawyer, my understanding of this law is that you are justified in using force to prevent a robbery beforehand or stop the fleeing robber.

My opinion is that I would not shoot at a fleeing robber. The potential civil and criminal legal problems are much more expensive and exhausting than the material loss.

- Jim

[longtooth]

Welcome aboard lucky45. Nothing like you 1st post being a hard one. One of the instrctors will give a good answer. Glad to have you on the board.

[KD5NRH]

My opinion is that I would not shoot at a fleeing robber. The potential civil and criminal legal problems are much more expensive and exhausting than the material loss.

I'd have to say it depends on what he's fleeing with.
If I'm carrying two guns, and he found the primary, I'd likely take my shot with the backup rather than have a better-armed robber running around looking for somebody else to rob with my gun.
If he's got my wallet and keys, he's got my address and access to my other guns, as well as a good chance of catching my fiance off guard. I'd say this one is a situational judgement call, just like everything else when it comes right down to it.

[txinvestigator]

Here is the law:

PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have
retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of ... robbery, or aggravated robbery.
PC §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.

While I am not a lawyer, my understanding of this law is that you are justified in using force to prevent a robbery beforehand or stop the fleeing robber.

My opinion is that I would not shoot at a fleeing robber. The potential civil and criminal legal problems are much more expensive and exhausting than the material loss.

- Jim

You posted the relevent setion to protect a person using deadly force; however, you are not justified to use deadly force in protection of persons when the offender is fleeing.


9.32 only allows deadly force to stop the immediate threat.

9.41 only allows the use of FORCE, and not deadly force. Deadly force CAN be used to protect and in some cases recover property under 9.42;


Texas Penal Code
§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.

[Lucky45]

Thanks everyone for the info because I want to be clear in my mind if I'm ever faced with this issue.

Now, txinvestigator and others quoted Texas Penal Code
§9.42.

(2) B about a person being justified 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;

This is the part that is juggling in my mind because it states one way and then it is suggested that you just let it go. And i think that is where split second decisions have to be made unless I have thought of the scenario before and know how to react. That is the main reason for this discussion.

Thanks

[txinvestigator]

Thanks everyone for the info because I want to be clear in my mind if I'm ever faced with this issue.

Now, txinvestigator and others quoted Texas Penal Code
§9.42.

(2) B about a person being justified 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;

This is the part that is juggling in my mind because it states one way and then it is suggested that you just let it go. And i think that is where split second decisions have to be made unless I have thought of the scenario before and know how to react. That is the main reason for this discussion.

Thanks

The reason most of us suggest you allow a fleeing person to flee is that you can only use deadly force if he is fleeing with your property AND you reasonably believe 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.

To me, it is too risky to chance having A or B when I take the shot. A Grand Jury or trial jury will have as much time as they need to decide if I met the requirements of A or B.

[kauboy]

You cannot shoot if he is fleeing with property unless the property he has could pose a serious threat to the lives of you or other(i.e. he stole your primary weapon) or is not recoverable.

If he is fleeing your property at night, and is still on your property(not in the street) then you could shoot if the items are not recoverable or could pose the same threat stated above.

But, and this is a big but, in Texas you are legally allowed to follow them immediately after the commision of the theft/robbery and trespass onto their property to pursue the reaquisition of your stolen items if you are positive that "they" hold absolutely no claim to them. You may also use whatever force is necessary to do so. If in the process of recovering your stolen items, you are met with a threat against your life or serious bodily injury, you are justified in protecting yourself with your own weapon.(9.41.b)

§ 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.

[kauboy]

Unfotunately it is not the job of the police to get your stuff back. It is nice when they do, but they are only legally supposed to catch the guy that did it. If somebody stole my work laptop that could have confidential government information, I will be going after it. Its no skin of the PD's back if I never see it again.

[txinvestigator]

You cannot shoot if he is fleeing with property unless the property he has could pose a serious threat to the lives of you or other(i.e. he stole your primary weapon) or is not recoverable.

That is NOT what 9.42 says. It says;

Texas Penal Code
§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


(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.

If he is fleeing your property at night, and is still on your property(not in the street) then you could shoot if the items are not recoverable or could pose the same threat stated above.

The law does not limit from where the person is fleeing. A person is not limited to using deadly force to stop a person who is fleeing with property only while the person is on your property. He being in the street is of no relevance.

But, and this is a big but, in Texas you are legally allowed to follow them immediately after the commision of the theft/robbery and trespass onto their property to pursue the reaquisition of your stolen items if you are positive that "they" hold absolutely no claim to them.

What? Where do you read that you may trespass on anothers property?

You may also use whatever force is necessary to do so. If in the process of recovering your stolen items, you are met with a threat against your life or serious bodily injury, you are justified in protecting yourself with your own weapon.(9.41.b)

9.41 only allows the use of force, not deadly force. Your justification for using deadly force comes from 9.42, which also requires that you meet all of the requirements of 9.41.

§ 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.

The law does allow a justification for using deadly force to stop a person who is fleeing with property after committing a burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime IF you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary and the land or property cannot be recovered by any other means, or if you believe that using less than deadly force would expose you or another to a risk of unlawful deadly force being used against you.

That is not limited to your property and does not stop and the street.

However, 9.41 does not allow a person to trespass onto anothers land or property to recover stolen items.

[txinvestigator]

Unfotunately it is not the job of the police to get your stuff back. It is nice when they do, but they are only legally supposed to catch the guy that did it. If somebody stole my work laptop that could have confidential government information, I will be going after it. Its no skin of the PD's back if I never see it again.

Actually the police work diligently to recover stolen property. They are; however, limited in manpower and resources. Generally the amount of property stolen is too great for the police to hope to recover it all.

[kauboy]

Diligent or not, its not their job.

"to reenter the land or recover the property " is stated in 9.42. To anyone reading it, there is no limitation on how the property may be recovered. If you are met with a life threatening situation in the excersize of the recovery, then the situation turns into a protection of ones own life, and deadly force could be used.

[txinvestigator]

Diligent or not, its not their job.

Sure it is, at least to try.

"to reenter the land or recover the property " is stated in 9.42. To anyone reading it, there is no limitation on how the property may be recovered. If you are met with a life threatening situation in the excersize of the recovery, then the situation turns into a protection of ones own life, and deadly force could be used.

renenter the land refers to land of which you were dispossed. it does not mean enter someone elses land. OF COURSE there is a limitiation on how the property may be recovered.


Texas Penal Code 9.41
(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