Can I use force if..

[srothstein]

you would have to believe that the items in your wallet could not be replaced/recovered

The statute does not use the word replaced, nor does is equate replacement with recovery. The two are not the same.

Just wanted to correct the typo, since I would have pointed out the same thing.

[pt145ss]

you would have to believe that the items in your wallet could not be replaced/recovered

The statute does not use the word recovered, nor does is equate replacement with recovery. The two are not the same. I believe shankpile is right. In Texas, you have a license to use deadly force under certain circumstances already made plain.

I will give you guys the replaced argument as it was a word i used. That being said because...me being a reasonable person...and a possible member of a jury pool...if you shoot a fleeing suspect who poses no threat to you in the back for stealing your wallet...I would convict. Mostly because there are other...less lethal means to recover the items. DL, CHL, and Credit cards can all be recoverd by other means.

as for recovered....it does use that word in the statue. I do not know how "recovered" is defined in statute...but here are some common meanings:

1: To get back; regain.
2: To restore (oneself) to a normal state: He recovered himself after a slip on the ice.
3: To compensate for: She recovered her losses.
4: To regain a normal or usual condition, as of health.
5: To receive a favorable judgment in a lawsuit

Example...to restore to a normal state. The normal state in this case would be to be in possession of a DL, CHL, and Credit cards. If my wallet is stolen and I go to DPS and get a new DL and CHL...and Then call the CC company to issue me new cards...would I then not be back to my original state of being in possesion of a DL, CHL, and CC? Were less than lethal means used to be restored back to my original state?

the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;

For the record...i do not know if I am right or wrong here so I hope you guys can convince me one way or the other.

[boomerang]

I will give you guys the replaced argument as it was a word i used. That being said because...me being a reasonable person...and a possible member of a jury pool...if you shoot a fleeing suspect who poses no threat to you in the back for stealing your wallet...I would convict.

I would vote not guilty if I was on the jury for someone charged with shooting a thief in the act.

I would vote not guilty all the way to a hung jury if necessary.

[pt145ss]

I will give you guys the replaced argument as it was a word i used. That being said because...me being a reasonable person...and a possible member of a jury pool...if you shoot a fleeing suspect who poses no threat to you in the back for stealing your wallet...I would convict.

I would vote not guilty if I was on the jury for someone charged with shooting a thief in the act.

I would vote not guilty all the way to a hung jury if necessary.

"In the Act" is one thing. Its different...at least in my mind...after the Act and the BG is fleeing.

[Captain Matt]

I'll try a hypothetical. Could you run after the crook and tackle him (use of force) to recover your property at low risk?

If the answer is no, the law says "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."

[pt145ss]

After reading and re-reading the code several times, i must admit that I was wrong and you guys are right. I think i was having a mental block. I could not (and still to some extent) can get passed the notion that it is immediately necessary to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back. Maybe I just believe that once the BG turned and ran that there is no longer an immediate threat...and giving chase and possibly pushing a bad situation over a wallet or something that can be replaced is just not worth it to me. So I guess I was blinded by my moral judgments about the situation when I should have read the code for what it is.

Thanks for forcing me to read the code in a more objective manner.

[KD5NRH]

1: To get back; regain.
2: To restore (oneself) to a normal state: He recovered himself after a slip on the ice.

So, how does one restore the state of not having one's address, membership status, (you honestly think he's not going to connect that NRA membership card with having some valuable guns in the house) and any other information carried in the wallet, in the hands of the BG?

[mgood]

If you see the neighbor kid going down the street on your bicycle, you're probably not justified in shooting.
I'd go to his parents and tell them, "Your brat stole my bike," or words to that effect.

But if a stranger is running away with my wallet, I probably would shoot.
I may have little or no money.
But I may have other things that would be difficult to impossible to replace. I've got phone numbers in there that I would never find if I lost that wallet. Some people have irreplaceable baby pictures and such.
Then there's the strong possibility of identity theft, which may cost you more than all the contents of your wallet.
And the things which can be replaced with some difficulty like driver's license, credit cards, et cetera . . . I would have to replace them. The thug would not be the one standing in line and paying fees to replace stuff.
His life is not worth that.
His life is not worth the ammunition used on him actually, and I think he or his family should have to reimburse me for any rounds fired at him while protecting my property.
And while some jurists might vote guilty, I think it'd be difficult, in many parts of Texas, to find twelve people on a jury who would all agree on a guilty verdict. I'd lean hard on the idea of there being things in my wallet that I'd never see again if I allowed this person out of my sights.

[Hos]

You are right that the wallet would not be "recovered" otherwise, but then again, you wouldn't be able to recover the avg. $10,000.00 to make sure you stayed out of jail either. I can see either way.

[casingpoint]

if you shoot a fleeing suspect who poses no threat to you in the back for stealing your wallet...I would convict

Texas law says I can shoot 'em. Yet, you would convict me. You sound like the kind of juror that Harold Fish had too many of. Because of them, he is now serving the third year of a ten year sentence he did not deserve.

I was on a jury once. Manslaughter charge. It was clearly self defense, and there were omissions apparent indicating that perhaps someone other than the defendant even shot the deceased, who incidentally needed killing. There were no witnesses to the actual shooting.

The D.A. office didn't even bother to get a ballistics match on the gun and bullet.

Despite the lack of evidence, some doubted. You could see it in their eyes during the deliberations.

Thou Shalt Not Kill. No matter what.

It was close, but the guy walked.

[dihappy]

No trolling.. I don’t own an M16 or AK-47 with oodles of magazines waiting for "the day". I'm far reserved from those guys at the gun shows who show up in their cammo…

I'm just reading the law and throwing out hypothetical’s. I recently moved back to Texas in 2007 and it seems the laws have changed somewhat in the favor of the citizens.

I'm posting and reading here because recently my 82 yr old granddad had somebody break in his house, tie him up to a chair and ramsack his valuables. So.. I'm getting my CHL again now that I'm back in TX, and reading all I can on the subject. As for my granddad, The authorities made a report and the insurance paid about 1% of the valuables... so I don't believe that there are any 'other' methods to retrieve your stolen property because once it leaves its gone. Is a wallet worth a life, nope... but the perps ought to take note that with the rising crime/invasions here recently, recent gun sales soaring, and chl aplications higher than ever before... its a bad time for those with a pension for larceny and assault.

To give you the benefit of the doubt, welcome to the board :)

Now, try not to sound so "gung ho" about being able (in some circumstances) to use deadly force due to damge or theft to property.

In the real world, you will have some serious expenses and explaining to do for shooting someone running away from you.

As for you and your family having break'ins, most of us here would not hesitate to use deadly force on someone breaking into our home.

Stick around and learn all you can, we have some very knowledgeable members on this forum.

[dihappy]

After reading and re-reading the code several times, i must admit that I was wrong and you guys are right. I think i was having a mental block. I could not (and still to some extent) can get passed the notion that it is immediately necessary to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back. Maybe I just believe that once the BG turned and ran that there is no longer an immediate threat...and giving chase and possibly pushing a bad situation over a wallet or something that can be replaced is just not worth it to me. So I guess I was blinded by my moral judgments about the situation when I should have read the code for what it is.

Thanks for forcing me to read the code in a more objective manner.

I think the difference here is that we are dealing with TWO different things. Not many would argue that anyone is justified in using deadly force while defending THEMSELVES. Its pretty much a no brainer.

However, it seems that Texas also allows for the use of deadly force to protect your PROPERTY. Many will argue that morally, KILLING someone over a wallet, or microwave is unconscionable.

However, using deadly force on a psycho setting your home on fire would probably get a few pats on the back.

[casingpoint]

Many will argue that morally, KILLING someone over a wallet, or microwave is unconscionable

Precisely what criminologist David Klinger describes in his book Into The Kill Zone:

"Many officers choose standards for pulling the trigger that are more restrictive than those set forth in law and administrative directives."

From "Into The Kill Zone"--A cops eye view of deadly force. All about cops who shot and those that didn't, cops who got shot, training to shoot, and the personal aftermath of it all.

[Excaliber]

Many will argue that morally, KILLING someone over a wallet, or microwave is unconscionable

Precisely what criminologist David Klinger describes in his book Into The Kill Zone:

"Many officers choose standards for pulling the trigger that are more restrictive than those set forth in law and administrative directives."

From "Into The Kill Zone"--A cops eye view of deadly force. All about cops who shot and those that didn't, cops who got shot, training to shoot, and the personal aftermath of it all.

Most LEO's I know use the standard of "When there is no other reasonable way to protect innocent life."

If they fired every time the law allowed, departments would have to increase their ammo budgets significantly.

[bubba1876]

Most LEO's I know use the standard of "When there is no other reasonable way to protect innocent life."

This pretty much my thinking on when I might have to use deadly force. I carry to protect the life and health of my family. I can live without a tv or a wallet, I'm not going before a grand jury for shooting a guy in the back after stealing my wallet. My personal rule is, if you have to think about whether a shoot is legal or not, don't shoot.