TexasCHLforum.com

G26ster wrote:I'm truly surprised by the number of folks who believe that if you have drawn your weapon first, you are the automatic winner in any encounter.

As long as the perp stays still like the target at the range there should be no problem.

E.Marquez wrote:The part of that statute that gets me every time is "(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any
other means; or"

As everything I own is covered by one insurance policy or another. All of my property is both "protected" and "recoverable" though my replacement value policies.

And that is in addition to the practicality issue brought up.. the legal issues, cost and stress of defending ones actions for shooting some lowlife stealing a car stereo, tools from my garage or a bike from my trailer.
Willing and capable are two different things.. I am capable, Im not willing

IANAL but I hope that "replaceable by insurance" does not mean the same thing as "recovered". The law doesn't say "replaceable by any other means".

CainA wrote:

lrpettit wrote:

CainA wrote:

bdickens wrote:

CainA wrote:I wouldn't shoot the perp even if justified. Material things aren't worth the legal headache.

Well now, how about if those material things are either a) your livelihood, like the tools with which you make your living and feed your family, or b) rare and extremely difficult to replace like your left-handed Gibson Flying V?

Insurance.

In my case, insurance wouldn't cover the weeks of effort it would take to recover the loss and the resultant effect on my business if they steal my "tools". I would defend my property.

Okay, good luck to you if you ever encounter this scenario.

Just curious, would you also just rely on insurance if they were burglarizing your house? Would you go out the back door and let them take whatever they wanted if they left before the police arrived? It's a serious question. I might depending on the circumstances. I hope I never know the answer. Some people say they wouldn't use their weapon to defend property under any circumstances. I believe I would in some circumstances and accept the legal hassle that goes with it. I don't know that either position is "right".

CainA wrote:

bdickens wrote:

CainA wrote:I wouldn't shoot the perp even if justified. Material things aren't worth the legal headache.

Well now, how about if those material things are either a) your livelihood, like the tools with which you make your living and feed your family, or b) rare and extremely difficult to replace like your left-handed Gibson Flying V?

Insurance.

In my case, insurance wouldn't cover the weeks of effort it would take to recover the loss and the resultant effect on my business if they steal my "tools". I would defend my property.

bdickens wrote:

CainA wrote:I wouldn't shoot the perp even if justified. Material things aren't worth the legal headache.

Well now, how about if those material things are either a) your livelihood, like the tools with which you make your living and feed your family, or b) rare and extremely difficult to replace like your left-handed Gibson Flying V?

This would more likely be my scenario (not the left-handed Gibson Flying V though). I'm pretty sure I would draw and be ready to use deadly force (if necessary) to stop the burglary if they were attempting to steal my "tools". I'd sure hope the guy would either run away empty handed or get on the ground so I didn't have to shoot. Taking a picture and dialing 911 would come first if time permitted.

So presumably there could be three different answers, one legal, one moral and one practical.
1. In summary, if you catch someone burglarizing your vehicle, and deadly force is the only way to stop him, I read it that you can use deadly force if you believe the property can't be recovered any other way (whatever that means). (Obviously the law is more explicit than this summary).
2. Some people might maintain that it is morally incorrect to kill someone for stealing property.
3. If you shoot someone (even if it is justified), you're going to go through a lot of crap and probably end up paying some legal fees. It's probably not worth it over a $150 radar detector.

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 t o 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.
PC §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:
TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS 61
(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.