|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 28, 2011, 11:40 PM | #26 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,929
|
It's important to note that section 9.42 is NOT the entire text of TX law on using deadly force for property protection. The conditions in 9.41 must ALSO be satisfied.
The reason that it's not terribly common to see prosecutions for such actions likely has a lot more to do with the difficulty of indicting a defendant in some areas than it does with the letter of the law. Quote:
That is not at all what the law says. § 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.You are talking about a simple theft, not a robbery or aggravated robbery or burglary and therefore what it comes down to is that you can legally use deadly force to prevent criminal mischief and theft ONLY if ALL of the following conditions apply:
Quote:
Besides, the deadly force laws are not there to give citizens a way to mete out justice, they are there to allow citizens to protect themselves (and in very restricted circumstances their property) when there is NO OTHER reasonable method for doing so. The idea that the law gives you, the citizen, the right to hand out justice is NOT consistent with the principles governing the legal use of deadly force. The legal use of deadly force is NOT about handing out justice with a gun, it is about preventing serious crimes under very carefully defined circumstances when no other reasonable options are available.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
March 1, 2011, 09:25 AM | #27 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
As pointed out earlier - it doesn't matter if your particular shooting is the most justifiable shooting that has ever been seen in the history of Texas law - you are still going to go before the Grand Jury for possible indictment. Now apparently, you recognized that the moraility of shooting someone over property was enough of a controversial idea that even in a room full of gun owners who favor broad self-defense laws, it might cause the topic to go in a different direction than you wanted. If that is true here, then how likely is it that people with those beliefs are on your Grand Jury? If they are on your Grand Jury, are there any gray areas in the law? Phrases like "reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary" that they might interpret differently? Just something to think about, since as fiddletown pointed out, the actual financial costs of shooting someone, even justifiably, can easily hit several thousand dollars - and that doesn't include personal costs (lost wages, being forced to move, losing your job, etc.), which are all things that have happened to people who used deadly force in much more serious situations than loss of property. |
|
March 1, 2011, 10:22 AM | #28 |
Member
Join Date: July 6, 2010
Location: Dallas tx
Posts: 73
|
Corrected I stand... I guess not even worth it.. I'm glad I asked.. Better to stand corrected than to stand dumb...
__________________
my fear was thrown along with my last diaper.. |
March 1, 2011, 03:51 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
It's a little off topic, but why is the only question often shoot or don't shoot, when an array of force options is what is really needed to confront a rapidly changing threat level?
Example: I always carry pepper spray when I am armed. which is always when outside of the home. Confront him with a holstered pistol, hidden but accessible, pepper spray in your off hand a and a big-a&& flashlight in the other. In your scenario, I would deploy the pepper spray without warning to 'soften him up'. If he tries to fight, start thumping soft tissue until his attitude changes. Watch his hands. If he's breaking in to your car, he has tools that double as deadly weapons. That may be the justification to shoot right there. Try to keep the car, yours or your neighbors, or a car door between you and the perp, if possible, until the jerk is either gone or under your control. Make sure you get the police en-route before you attempt any of this, and make sure they recognize YOU as the caller, and not the bad guy. If you only show up with one tool, which one are you going to use? Is it the right one in every case, and if not, what's that going to cost you? My two cents. |
March 1, 2011, 05:14 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
Insurance is for protecting your possessions. A gun is for protecting your life.
|
March 3, 2011, 02:18 PM | #31 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 8, 2005
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 2,119
|
The original question would be unjustified use of lethal force, called murder. And if you didn't kill him, he would be justified in 'self-defense' against you. Also, you'd be open to civil lawsuits.
Better to grab a camera and snap pics and call the cops. Last edited by leadcounsel; March 3, 2011 at 02:33 PM. |
March 3, 2011, 03:15 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
Kind of a moot point anyway, most car thieves run when confronted. The few that would consider sticking around will usually change their mind if they notice the .45 in your hand
|
March 8, 2011, 10:27 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
Eddie, in your first post you were leaning out the window observing the thief.....now it's property strewn all over the interior, as well?
So what? Your car and everything in it is a THING, not a PERSON. You have INSURANCE. You can RENT a car for a day or two and INSURANCE pays for it. Cry the world a river. You absolutely don't kill PEOPLE, even scumbucket thieves, to protect your STUFF. First you call 911, then you wait indoors and do nothing until the Police arrive or he tries to leave before the Police get there. Then you can do your duty as a citizen and detain him. But for you, having posted your question about killing him, not pointing a weapon at him to detain him, or anything of less violence, you should avoid getting into anything less than a true life-or-death situation. Your post will be resurrected and read aloud in court and media, good luck getting out of having to plea bargain for the prospect of a normal life for some years. You will wish you just got a new stereo or car from the insurance company, I guarantee it. |
March 9, 2011, 05:46 AM | #34 |
Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Location: Georgia
Posts: 92
|
i dont know how the term burglary is defined in TX law... (i would assume it is the same since federal courts use it also) but in GA, burglary is, in my own words because im too tired to look it up, burglary is entering a house (or in this case a car) with the INTENT to commit a crime.
so you break and enter, that is burglary. if you boost a car stereo you get burglary charges, as well as theft by taking. assuming the TX law defines burglary the same as GA law, then any reasonable person who sees a man (assumed stranger to the neighborhood) standing beside a car with a broken drivers side window and an alarm going off could assume a crime in progress and detain the perp at gunpoint until an LEO arrives. BUT!!!! here comes the what ifs.... you stated bad neighborhood, nightime.... what if you go down to confront the thief and detain him, and find that he/she has a buddy where you could not see them from your window. they both have guns.... now you are 2v1 and in a crossfire situation. somewhere you want to be over a stereo or some cd's?
__________________
if at first you dont succeed, get a bigger hammer! |
March 9, 2011, 11:30 AM | #35 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
Quote:
Based on the "imminent commission" wording, in TX, one is allowed to use deadly force to prevent burglary before the deed actually happens, IF the laundry list of preconditions in Mike Irwin's post is still satisfied. This is a BIG IF. Quote:
Given the preconditions in the statute, I would not feel confident using deadly force unless I actually saw the crime occur and I strongly believed that the conditions in § 9.42(3)(A) or (3)(B) were satisfied, e.g. the man is conspicuously holding an object that could be used as a weapon, and he is close enough to attack if I simply yelled at him to drop the stolen goods. Also, FYI it cannot merely be A car, it must be YOUR car or a car belonging to another person as outlined in § 9.43: Quote:
Your neighbor's car is probably not on the list.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
||||
March 12, 2011, 02:55 AM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 28, 2007
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 196
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor...ng_controversy
Joe Horn was on the horn and he said he has a right to shoot to defend property, looks like he was right. I didn't think it was a good idea but I am glad he wasn't imprisoned either.
__________________
R.I.P Sam "Trout" Barbetta 82nd Airborne, S.F biker, friend. http://www.ahalenia.com/memorial/sbarbetta.html |
March 12, 2011, 08:51 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
I am sure the events have taken a tremendous toll on Joe Horn.
|
March 12, 2011, 12:01 PM | #38 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Actually, Joe Horn claimed deadly force in self defense after one of the men ran at him, not defense of property. He was also extremely fortunate that a plainclothes detective had arrived on the scene in time to witness the shooting and backed his version of events, since he ended up shooting an unarmed man in the back.
Even with that luck, he had his house picketed by local radicals, had his life turned upside down and still had to lawyer up. Great neighbor; but I bet the guy whose property he defended didn't pay those bills or get the death threats. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|