TexasCHLforum.com

Solaris wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:[
Sec. 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.

It may be open to interpretation, but I believe some would believe that protected/recovered might also mean protected or replaceable via insurance. Or, if something is invaluable (family heirloom), that is not recoverable/replaceable. That's how my CHL instructor years ago explained it. I don't know if it's ever been clarified via case law.

Your CHL instructor should stick to the DPS curriculum.

Insurance does NOT protect property, nor does it recover it.

i have fire insurance. I had a fire. My insurance did not protect the property that burned. It did not recover it either. Insurance did give me the financial means to find a suitable replacements, but not in all cases.

VoiceofReason wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:You have the right to use force to keep someone from stealing your property, so you are covered to use the THREAT of deadly force, i.e. drawing your firearm. NOT the actual use of deadly force, unless certain conditions apply (items not covered by insurance/invaluable/your life or someone else's is in danger, nighttime, etc.). Read the penal code for those exceptions. I wouldn't risk going to jail over an unjustified use of deadly force for someone running off with my GPS/laptop/etc. after I told them to stop.
Now if they pull a weapon, charge you, etc., then have the right to use deadly force.
Home driveway, I believe the same rules apply.

I may be wrong but I don't believe insurance or value play a part in justification.

Sec. 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.

GlockBrandGlock wrote:

locke_n_load wrote: Now if they pull a weapon, charge you, etc., then have the right to use deadly force.
Home driveway, I believe the same rules apply.

What if you pull a weapon as a use of force to stop the burglary, then they charge at you? Would that constitute using deadly force? Or would they need a weapon in hand? I know you're not a lawyer, but I'd like another opinion, or know if there is already a precedent for this.