TexasCHLforum.com

AlaskanInTexas wrote:

Keith B wrote:No. 9.42 for burglary only pertains to 30.02. Burglary of a vehicle (30.04) is only a Misdemeanor (dsicounting theft from or of the vehicle or the vehicle being occupied). Where use of deadly force plays into a vehcile is under 9.32 for defense of person if the vehicle is occupied and only relates to the crime committed against the person, not the vehicle itself.

While the law is certainly ambiguous, I see nothing that supports this statement. I also see nothing in the law that limits your right to protect property to those situations where the actor committed a felony.

RoyGBiv wrote:

gigag04 wrote:I think if we really want to be responsible in our use of DF, then the question is better framed "do I absolutely have to shoot this person doing XYZ"
(all my opinion)

I'm just curious where the hard stops are...

Count me among those that would not shoot to stop a fleeing burglar (I'm fairly well insured for most things), but it's always good to know (with certainty) that if some extraordinary situation emerged, where the boundaries exactly are...

So... Are 30.01, 30.02 and 30.03 all and each included in the 9.42 definition of "Burglary"?

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

LeonCarr wrote:After reading the title I was gonna ask, "How are little hamburgers and sandwiches a problem?"



Just my .02,
LeonCarr