Thief shot in Houston while trying to break into car... - Page 5 - XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source!

danp · 03-18-2006, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damon

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodnocker1

I've read the Texas Penal Code Chapter 9 several times and unless I have overlooked it each time, there is nowhere in there that I can find where it says there is one set of rules for using force (or deadly force) at night and one set for days. If there is anyone who can direct me to it, I would greatly appreciate it. I also took the Texas CHL course in October of 2004 and my Instructor never made mention of any difference.

Its right here.

§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statu...00.htm#9.41.00

So to play devil's advocate, per section 9.42(3)(A) the person mst reasonably believe that the property cannot be protected or recovered in any other way. So if you had yelled "stop or I will shoot" or some other such dribble and the thief had run away, deadly force is not justified.

To further this, you shoot a thief while he was in the process of stealing your car and he did not die (this ain't the movies) so now you have a prosecutable person who can testify in court; "I would have stopped if he had yelled before shooting me."

My own standard for deadly force mirrors the CA standard: in defense of life or if one reasonably believes that the threat of death or great bodily injury is immenent. I personally am not willing to shoot and possibly kill someone in defense of property. Life, no matter how low cannot be replaced. Property can.

xHypex · 03-18-2006, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danp

To further this, you shoot a thief while he was in the process of stealing your car and he did not die (this ain't the movies) so now you have a prosecutable person who can testify in court; "I would have stopped if he had yelled before shooting me."

My own standard for deadly force mirrors the CA standard: in defense of life or if one reasonably believes that the threat of death or great bodily injury is immenent. I personally am not willing to shoot and possibly kill someone in defense of property. Life, no matter how low cannot be replaced. Property can.

Dan, you are correct in that if the would be thief stopped and ran you should highly reconsider use of force (especially deadly force). Similiarly, you can use deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of arson, but once the match is tossed you are not justified in the use of deadly force.

I love Texas, but just because a law is on the books does not mean you should be willing to be the test case. If the DA in Houston is willing to prosecute people for the new traveling handgun bill, you can be sure he will do everything possible to give you your day in court for the use of dealy force if it is even remotely questionable. Unfortunately, just because you are in the right does not mean you won't be substantially burdened between court time and monetary fees. The only ones who make out well are the lawyers IMHO.
-hype

one-eyed-fatman · 03-18-2006, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Life, no matter how low cannot be replaced.

That's the general idea.

retired · 03-18-2006, 04:47 PM

Some of the people I have met over the years (Hillside Stranglers and the Nightstalker, to mention 3), don't deserve to be sucking air and have no need to be replaced; one of them is more than enough.

Damon · 03-18-2006, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danp

I personally am not willing to shoot and possibly kill someone in defense of property. Life, no matter how low cannot be replaced. Property can.

I have no problem with using deadly force to protect my property. I wish it was legal in my state.

I don't see it as just property, I see it as part of my life.

I worked many hours of my life to get the money for that "property", I won't get those hours of my life back. I'm not rich and I work hard for my money like a lot of people do.

If a thief tries to take something of mine that I put in lots of hours in my life to get then I have no problem at all using deadly force to stop him.

I place absolutely no value in a life that is lived to take from others who have worked long and hard to get what they have. I would shoot to stop and if he dies then thats one less thief in the world.

Vector · 03-18-2006, 06:47 PM

Hmmm 4 shots, huh? He must have been new to Texas.

Apdl · 03-18-2006, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damon

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodnocker1

I've read the Texas Penal Code Chapter 9 several times and unless I have overlooked it each time, there is nowhere in there that I can find where it says there is one set of rules for using force (or deadly force) at night and one set for days. If there is anyone who can direct me to it, I would greatly appreciate it. I also took the Texas CHL course in October of 2004 and my Instructor never made mention of any difference.

Its right here.

§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statu...00.htm#9.41.00

well i take it back it was justified lol they do not F*&$ around in texas!
i myself whould have not shot him hadi not been in danger

Oni · 03-19-2006, 12:00 AM

This may seem cruel, though if the robber was running away with my posessions I would unload a full magazine targeted at his legs.

Boma · 03-19-2006, 12:32 AM

Pulling a gun on a guy on your yard and not shooting/killing them could be a bad idea. If you just point the gun at them and they run away, they could come back later with guns/friends and come jack you up later. They know where you live and that you have a gun. You never know.

Oni · 03-19-2006, 12:36 AM

Although that makes quite a bit of logical sense, it really does depend on the neighborhood. *sighs*

03-18-2006, 06:47 PM	#46
Vector XDTalk Newbie Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 23	Hmmm 4 shots, huh? He must have been new to Texas. __________________ Beretta Cougar .45;S&W 4506, 4006, 686(x2), 640;Taurus 627 Tracker;H&K USP .45;Ruger Mini-14 Springfield XD-40sc, XD-40 Service Bi-Tone, XD-40 Tactical, 1911 Loaded Ruger 10/22; Norinco SKS; Bear Whitetail II left-handed bow(up for trade) We aren't born stupid, we're born ignorant. It's knowledge that makes us stupid.

03-19-2006, 12:00 AM	#48
Oni XDTalk 1K Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,544	This may seem cruel, though if the robber was running away with my posessions I would unload a full magazine targeted at his legs. __________________ I came here for only 1 thing and you mother f-uckers did nothing but lie and instill me with false hope. F-uck off.

03-19-2006, 12:32 AM	#49
Boma XDTalk 500 Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 685	Pulling a gun on a guy on your yard and not shooting/killing them could be a bad idea. If you just point the gun at them and they run away, they could come back later with guns/friends and come jack you up later. They know where you live and that you have a gun. You never know. __________________ The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable. -Sun Tzu

03-19-2006, 12:36 AM	#50
Oni XDTalk 1K Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,544	Although that makes quite a bit of logical sense, it really does depend on the neighborhood. sighs __________________ I came here for only 1 thing and you mother f-uckers did nothing but lie and instill me with false hope. F-uck off.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-18-2006, 04:47 PM	#44
retired XDTalk 5K Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: S. Calif. Posts: 5,568	Some of the people I have met over the years (Hillside Stranglers and the Nightstalker, to mention 3), don't deserve to be sucking air and have no need to be replaced; one of them is more than enough.