TexasCHLforum.com

Can anyone clarify the law on this? I seem to remember that you have a right to draw your weapon on a burglar breaking into your car after dark. Is this correct?

Nevermind... Found it.

§ 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

A man in Odessa shot a car burglar at night, and was no billed. It was in town and the car was parked across the street from his house, near a street light. I may not be recalling it correctly, but I think the burglar was killed.
I do know there were no charges brought on the resident.

Technically you can't "Burgle" a car.... Burglary has the distinct definition of:

§ 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; or
(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony,
theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or
attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.
(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.

So technically, breaking into a Vehicle is Criminal Mischief, Destruction of Property, and possibly theft if they take anything.

dicion wrote:Technically you can't "Burgle" a car.... Burglary has the distinct definition of:

§ 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; or
(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony,
theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or
attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.
(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.

So technically, breaking into a Vehicle is Criminal Mischief, Destruction of Property, and possibly theft if they take anything.

Well, not exactly.

Technically, breaking into a car is burglary of a vehicle:

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.

(c) For purposes of this section, a container or trailer carried on a rail car is a part of the rail car.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that:

(1) the offense is a Class A misdemeanor with a minimum term of confinement of six months if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has been previously convicted of an offense under this section; and

(2) the offense is a state jail felony if:

(A) it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has been previously convicted two or more times of an offense under this section; or

(B) the vehicle or part of the vehicle broken into or entered is a rail car.

Ah, My bad! I didn't know there was a completely different section for Burglary of a vehicle!
Learn something new every day

Well, never mind then! Carry on!

So, does this count as 'Burglary' for justification of deadly force under chapter 9 then? Since "Burglary of a Vehicle' is not specifically listed, but "Burglary" is, and there's a section named exactly that

Excaliber wrote:
Well, not exactly.

Technically, breaking into a car is burglary of a vehicle:

Sec. 30.04. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES

Thank you, you beat me to it.

Munk wrote:Nevermind... Found it.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

Amazing what can be found in the penal code! Often the answers to the questions posted on this forum are there for reading.


Not sure of the exact number, but when the legislature reduced BMV from a F4 (state jail felony) to a MA (class A misd) they more than doubled IIRC.

gigag04 wrote:

Excaliber wrote:
Well, not exactly.

Technically, breaking into a car is burglary of a vehicle:

Sec. 30.04. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES

Thank you, you beat me to it.

Munk wrote:Nevermind... Found it.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

Amazing what can be found in the penal code! Often the answers to the questions posted on this forum are there for reading.


Not sure of the exact number, but when the legislature reduced BMV from a F4 (state jail felony) to a MA (class A misd) they more than doubled IIRC.

When it was working its way up to a vote, I remember reading that senior law enforcement officers warned this would be the virtually certain result, but the legislature ignored them and went ahead with it anyway.

Sorta like those who voted for the recent health care bill, I doubt the folks responsible for this fiasco will be touting their roles in it during their election campaigns.

Munk wrote:Nevermind... Found it.

§ 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

Please be sure to see the remainder of that section as well:

; 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.

KFP wrote:(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

It's a rare situation where it wouldn't be reasonable to believe that. How often do the cops catch the thieves? In those rare cases, how often do they also recover all the property undamaged?

glock27 wrote:im not sure about a vehicle theft shooting, because was that mans life worth your car?

I will likely make myself out to be an animal here, but to answer your question... YES!

I HATE thieves. I can't even begin to tell you, without breaking the forum rules, how I feel about them. I bust my tail to have the items I own. I am not going to allow someone to take them from me. If I catch someone stealing my vehicle, I'm going to have a hard time not stopping them.

glock27 wrote:i feel the same way you do but my instructor said its not worth shooting them unless they are armed for sure, thats what insurance is for. however i only have liabilty on my vehicles.

i see where your coming from and i have the same state of mind as you. but if its dark GAME ON!!

otherwise think about the aftermath if its during daylight hours

Oh absolutely...daytime is completely different.