TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 12:11 am On another point, several people have mentioned the jury and how weird their rulings might be. I think we are seeing a a return to much more traditional Texas values recently. Even (especially?) in the big cities with liberal judges and district attorneys who will prosecute you, people are getting fed up with crime. I might be more willing than most to put my faith in a Texas jury.

Unfortunately, this is another factor to consider during that split-second when you're deciding whether or not to shoot. In some liberal, gun-hating cities, e.g. Austin, you might very well be indicted for a serious crime even in a clear self defense case. I can see a pink-haired tattooed liberal Austin jury deciding that you murdered that poor thief because he was running away with your wallet. Or at least, a DA taking it to a grand jury and making your life miserable for awhile.

In contrast, in other communities (e.g. I used to live down the road from Gatesville), especially some smaller rural towns, the local sheriff would slap you on the back and say "hey, good shot, buddy."

As the OP, I have several things to throw into this discussion: some people mentioned the whims of jury, which is always a consideration, but I'm focusing more on protections that are built into the law, regardless of what the jury thinks.For example, if somebody kicks in my front door and storms into the house waving a gun, I'm protected by the Castle Doctrine, even if a liberal Austin jury thinks I'm a murderer.

It also refers to your wallet, but it would remain intact if it referred to your phone or wristwatch.

At least some of the language tends to disfavor using deadly force in this scenario, because it says,

"... to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery..."

In this case, it's not imminent; it's already happened. I think the "imminence" concept is out the window here.

That leaves:

"... "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 [the actor] reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."

This clearly does not mean "replaced" or "you can get another one with your insurance." And I don't think "difficulty of replacing" is viable. So if it's one credit card, it's easy to replace, but if it's five credit cards, it's too difficult and you can shoot? No, that doesn't work. Again, it's not about "replacing." Heck, if it were about "replacing," this language would be almost meaningless, because then no matter what they stole, you could just go to the store and buy another one, i.e. "replace" it. This is about "protecting" or "recovering." I don't think the value of the property is really relevant here. Like if your wrist watch was worth over X number of dollars, you're justified in shooting to protect/recover it. Naw....

One thing about scenarios in general is that no matter how cut and dried they are, there are always little nooks and crannies that can defy clarification. For example, that's a good point about not picking up your wallet afterwards, because that's evidence that he robbed you of it. But hey, I need to immediately call a lawyer (or legal protection coverage, which many of us have). And to do that, I need to get their card out of the wallet to get the phone number. So that could be problematic.

Your own preparation and practice could be a factor, as well. Assuming you don't open carry in an OWB holster, do you practice drawing and firing quickly from concealment? If so, and you're fast enough, maybe you would be able to distract the robber by throwing or dropping your wallet (or phone or watch or whatever) and then drawing and firing when he looks down and bends over to pick it up. My wallet, for example, is a loose, simple bifold design, so cards and money fall out of it easily. I could toss it so its contents would scatter on the ground somewhat, which could increase the opportunities to bring the firearm into action.

I know there are a million self-defense scenarios out there, but this one is pretty clear cut and actually quite possible. I would like to hear your opinions on it.
You're walking somewhere and suddenly, out of the blue, a robber jumps out in front of you and points his gun at you point blank, finger on the trigger, and demands your wallet. You're carrying concealed, but drawing at this point would be suicidal. Having no choice, you hand him your wallet. He grabs it out of your hand, turns around and starts to run off. At this point, under Texas law, would you be justified in stopping him with deadly force? Think carefully.