Fangs wrote:pt145ss wrote:I think you might be able to use reasonable force up to and including Deadly Force while in fresh pursuit of the BG…if the circumstances prove that you are in imminent danger of serious bodily injury AND there are no other means of getting the items back that were stolen.
I might be reading this wrong, but it seems like I could shoot a BG in the back while he's running with my wallet without any fear for my life. My trail of thought underlined:
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.
Now I'm NOT talking about the moral aspect of is my wallet worth his life. I'm simply saying that it seems to me, as far as the law is concerned, deadly force can be used to shoot someone in the back while they are running away from me with my property even if I'm in no immediate danger.
IMHO...I think you may have the emphases on the wrong part.
(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.
Given the scenario that a BG just stole your wallet, in order to be justified in using deadly force to stop the BG from escaping with your wallet...you would have to believe that the items in your wallet could not be replaced/recovered. We know that the first part is met by the robbery itself because...well...the BG just robbed you. The second part is not so clear in that most items in a wallet to a reasonable person could be replaced with a few phone calls and some paperwork.
(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;
Now lets talk about where you put your emphases…on the OR which states: (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.
If the BG guy is fleeing…what risk is he posing to you? None…therefore deadly force is not immediately necessary. That being said, one could give fresh pursuit. I also, believe that while giving fresh pursuit, if the BG turns and does pose a threat of serious bodily harm or death, then one would be justified.
Just my opinion.