That is a very interesting distinction. I would like to offer a counterpoint, just for the sake of discussion.srothstein wrote:One important clarification: breaking into a vehicle with the intent to commit a theft is not "burglary" (PC 30.02) but "burglary of a vehicle" (PC 30.04). In the chapter listing the crimes for which deadly force can be used, I believe the courts would say they are referring just to the actual crime of burglary under PC 30.02 and not the whole cahpter on burglary or all types of burglaries. My logic for this is the reference following it where they list both robbery and aggravated robbery. These are two sections of the same chapter, much as burglary and burglary of a vehicle are. If they list specific sections for that chapter, I must conclude they were referring to specific sections in each chapter.
I think they listed both "robbery" and "aggravated robbery" in order to clarify that it is not only "aggravated robbery" which justifies the use of deadly force, but in fact also 29.02 robbery. I would also note that there are only two definitions of robbery (29.02 and 29.03) so they listed them both. I suggest this may require clarification for the simple reason that it may not be a normal assumption for people (including those on this forum) that deadly force is justified to protect property if the robber has not threatened you with a weapon or there is not some other disparity of force (you are disabled or elderly). So the listing of both "aggravated robbery" and "robbery" may be intended to communicate that robbery in the absence of the conditions for "aggravated robbery" still justifies the use of deadly force. So in this case, there is an increased risk of bodily harm if you are subject to "aggravated robbery" than just plain old "robbery", so they intended to provide the distinction that the conditions of increased risk of "aggravated robbery" are not necessary to justify the use of deadly force.
However the listing of burglary in general rather than all five sub-sections (including 30.05 and 30.06) seems to me to lack this level of distinction simply because there is no defined difference in risk associated with 30.02 "burglary" (of a building) vs. the other two burglary definitions (vending machine, vehicle). In other words, if you run upon someone breaking into your car or vending machine, you are not at any greater risk of bodily harm than if you run upon someone breaking into your home or office. So unlike the case of "aggravated robbery" vs. "robbery", there is no need to provide any clarification that elevated risk conditions are not necessary in some particular definition of "burglary" in order to justify the use of deadly force. In fact, there is no definition of "burglary" that defines any increased risk of bodily harm or disparity of force, as there is with "robbery".
Now just to head off the counter arguments, realize that the offense of "burglary" does not presume that you are home at the time of a burglary of your home. Some may presume therefore that "burglary" is intended to assume you are at home at the time of the burglary (which is not the case), and you may suspect that this increases your risk of bodily harm since you must be bodily present to be bodily harmed. But this misses the point entirely since we are talking about a use-of-force response that requires your presence to begin with, so the assumption must be that in whatever case of burglary (building, car, vending machine), you are present to respond with deadly force. So while it would take an extreme fool to try and break into my car to commit a burglary while I am sitting in the car, and it is far more likely some burglar might break into my home while I am in it, this in itself does not represent a legal distinction in risk since there is no special category of burglary that I can find which includes the condition that a person is present in the building being burglarized. On a practical note, if someone is breaking into my car, then I have a very high expectation that even if they didn't have a gun before they began the burglary, they may well emerge from my car armed with my own gun.
So, I think it is not clear that by omitting the categories of "burglary of coin-operated or coin-collection machines" and "burglary of a vehicle" they intend to imply that deadly force is justified only in the case of burglary of a habitation or building.
Furthermore, the chapter 30 is "Burglary and Criminal Trespass", so the distinction in this case seems to me to be the omission of "Criminal Trespass" from the justification for the use of deadly force, given that of the five sub-sections, three are "Burglary" and two are "Criminal Trespass".