Got my CHL today and 3 hours later my first incident!

[boomerang]

Are you suggesting that, in the situation Dubya specifically asked us to respond to, you believe the use of deadly force is justified?

I said good/bad not lawful/unlawful.

I'm not his lawyer and I don't know all the details of his situation, so I don't have an opinion if it's legally justified.

[aardwolf]

So, beyond criminal trespassers on the OPs property with his family present... what would all of the "let them leave" suggestors suggest if they had continued to hook up the trailer to try to tow it off?

I suggest doing what you think is moral and legal but it's your decision and you have to live with it either way. The people telling you to let them go will not pay to replace your property. The people telling you to stop the criminals will not pay for your legal defense if you have a DA like Chuckie. Neither will be at your side if you wake up in the middle of the night regretting your decision, whether you choose to fight back or allow yourself to be victimized.

[KinnyLee]

3. Stay solidly within the law so I don't incur $40,000 in legal bills in order to protect a $2500 trailer

Is it too much to speculate that this is the very reason why thieves are so bold? They know the typical owner don't want to spend $40,000 over a $2500 property?

[dubya]

I don't want to go to far with "what if" but if you were carjacked and armed would you let a thief drive off with your car?
Would you let a thief take your car from your driveway?
What is the line? Is it a dollar amount?

Most of use are comfortable with "stopping the crime or criminal" if we are concerned for ours/our family's safety.

Where does trespass fit in? You would not fire a shot to scare an intruder from your house?
Nighttime is certainly elevated a level.

I am not certain the OP was wrong firing a shot on his property to alert criminal trespassers to leave his property and protect his family.
I am seeing here it is unlawful to fire a firearm on your own 5 acre+ property in Texas?
A good idea? Possibly not. How far do you let the criminals go before you act?

Why might you feel justified saving your car in a public area and not your trailer/horse/cow/goat on your own property?
I'm not trying to play Devil's Advocate; you guys have raised some good questions.

I know I will protect my family from harm. Property? Joe Horn did not get a lot of criticism from the law abiding on his decision to protect his neighbor's property - not his own. Of course, he says he fired when they came in his yard and he felt threatened. I can tell you I am not going to shoot someone for trespassing. If I am frightened/startled/in fear at night the circumstances with dictate but I am not letting anyone invade my immediate proximity that creates a risk - certainly on my own property where they are trespassing. Let's not forget the men at the Christian Recording Studio in Garland and the many others. In the OPs scenario the criminals were fleeing - let them flee; he helped them along. Other situations dictate other actions.

EDIT: I agree the point here is that at the point they were fleeing there was no reason to shoot. And, no reason to fire warning shots.
If they had persisted would you have rather fired warning shots or shot them or let them take the trailer?

[Excaliber]

I don't want to go to far with "what if" but if you were carjacked and armed would you let a thief drive off with your car?
Would you let a thief take your car from your driveway?
What is the line? Is it a dollar amount?

Most of use are comfortable with "stopping the crime or criminal" if we are concerned for ours/our family's safety.

Where does trespass fit in? You would not fire a shot to scare an intruder from your house?
Nighttime is certainly elevated a level.

I am not certain the OP was wrong firing a shot on his property to alert criminal trespassers to leave his property and protect his family.
I am seeing here it is unlawful to fire a firearm on your own 5 acre+ property in Texas?
A good idea? Possibly not. How far do you let the criminals go before you act?

Why might you feel justified saving your car in a public area and not your trailer/horse/cow/goat on your own property?
I'm not trying to play Devil's Advocate; you guys have raised some good questions.

I know I will protect my family from harm. Property? Joe Horn did not get a lot of criticism from the law abiding on his decision to protect his neighbor's property - not his own. Of course, he says he fired when they came in his yard and he felt threatened. I can tell you I am not going to shoot someone for trespassing. If I am frightened/startled/in fear at night the circumstances with dictate but I am not letting anyone invade my immediate proximity that creates a risk - certainly on my own property where they are trespassing. Let's not forget the men at the Christian Recording Studio in Garland and the many others. In the OPs scenario the criminals were fleeing - let them flee; he helped them along. Other situations dictate other actions.

EDIT: I agree the point here is that at the point they were fleeing there was no reason to shoot. And, no reason to fire warning shots.
If they had persisted would you have rather fired warning shots or shot them or let them take the trailer?

Dubya, in your earlier post, you asked what I thought was a serious and thoughtful question about how one could manage the situation the OP described if the crime had included an actual attempt to remove the trailer from the property.

I took the time to give you a serious answer, including a logical methodology for identifying viable options, a run through of some possible options, and a specific suggestion for what I thought was the best solution under the circumstances. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I think I included enough food for thought to form the basis for a productive discussion. I was looking forward to having my ideas reviewed and critiqued by you and the rest of the members.

I am truly disappointed that you didn't find any of these points worth addressing. Other than acknowledging that "you guys have posed some good questions," you totally ignored the very information you specifically requested and responded with a wilder set of "what if" questions that would have been readily answered if you had taken the time to make your own decisions on the 4 questions and priorities I shared with you.

I am also puzzled that you apparently believe Joe Horn didn't get a lot of criticism from the law abiding (I think Mr. Horn himself would disagree), and that it's OK under some circumstances to fire warning shots or shots to "alert criminal trespassers to leave (the) property" or to "scare" intruders.

My best advice to you at this point is to put a good lawyer on retainer and run your ideas past him before you find yourself in one of these circumstances where you may do something that seems like a good idea at the time, but doesn't look nearly as smart in the cold light of the following day.

[dubya]

Excaliber, I guess I could not read your posts at the depth at you would wish in the middle of the day. I had a sincere desire to understand the issues here.
I am dissapointed you would deride my efforts. I am not here for a debate or devil's advocacy; I am an old guy and was trying to understand. Sorry about that.

[03Lightningrocks]

Good Lord almighty. Some of the posters here just crack me up. Joe Horn shooting two fleeing mexicans(columbians...whatever) is OK...but the op fires a couple warning shots in the air and OMG...it's just horrible. Maybe the op should have done like Joe and blast em in the back...yeah...then he would have been a hero too.

[Excaliber]

Excaliber, I guess I could not read your posts at the depth at you would wish in the middle of the day. I had a sincere desire to understand the issues here.
I am dissapointed you would deride my efforts. I am not here for a debate or devil's advocacy; I am an old guy and was trying to understand. Sorry about that.

I haven't derided anyone's efforts - I expressed disappointment at what appeared to be a lack of interest in information you specifically asked for. If one asks a sincere question and someone takes the time to give you a thoughtful answer, I think it is ungentlemanly to ignore that and submit another lengthy post with several more versions of essentially the same question as if that response had never been offered.

Your posts indicate you hold beliefs that my command level law enforcement experience tells me will get you into very serious trouble if you carry them out in action. I was not being snide or sarcastic in recommending that you consult an attorney. I just don't want to see you in jail or making headlines as a legal test case at the expense of all of your worldly assets. I suggested legal consultation in the hope that you might listen to someone you paid to give you solid advice. That might have more credibility for you than the free information available on this forum. It's just a suggestion you can take or leave.

If you truly are trying to understand viable options for criminal trespass and theft from land situations, and made a hasty post that didn't fully represent your thoughts, I can understand that. Now that you're past the middle of the day and have had time to read and consider my response to the situation you asked about, I'd be happy to go back and pick up the discussion where we left off with no hard feelings if you're interested. So:

Did the 4 questions I posed make sense?
What were your answers to them?
Do you share the same 4 priorities I suggested, or do you have others or a different order of importance?
Do you agree or disagree with my brief analysis of the options available for dealing with the situation you posed?
Did you think my recommended solution was a good one? If not, why not?
Was any of this helpful to you in preparing to handle incidents in the future?

[Excaliber]

Good Lord almighty. Some of the posters here just crack me up. Joe Horn shooting two fleeing mexicans(columbians...whatever) is OK...but the op fires a couple warning shots in the air and OMG...it's just horrible. Maybe the op should have done like Joe and blast em in the back...yeah...then he would have been a hero too.

Mr. Horn may be seen as some type of cult hero by the armchair commando crowd, but some of us think that what Mr. Horn did was far from OK. I don't know any sane folks who would emulate his conduct in a similar situation, and with the benefit of hindsight, I'd bet money he wouldn't either.

The actions of the OP here under the circumstances he described appeared to be clearly unlawful as well.

Two questionable or clearly unjustified use of force incidents do not add up to a single right.

[03Lightningrocks]

Good Lord almighty. Some of the posters here just crack me up. Joe Horn shooting two fleeing mexicans(columbians...whatever) is OK...but the op fires a couple warning shots in the air and OMG...it's just horrible. Maybe the op should have done like Joe and blast em in the back...yeah...then he would have been a hero too.

Mr. Horn may be seen as some type of cult hero by the armchair commando crowd, but some of us think that what Mr. Horn did was far from OK. I don't know any sane folks who would emulate his conduct in a similar situation, and with the benefit of hindsight, I'd bet money he wouldn't either.

The actions of the OP here under the circumstances he described appeared to be clearly unlawful as well.

Two questionable or clearly unjustified use of force incidents do not add up to a single right.

I agree with you completely. I was just pointing out the inconsistencies in some of the "opinions" expressed by some posters in this forum.

[KBCraig]

Joe Horn shooting two fleeing mexicans(columbians...whatever) is OK...

Mind if I give your horse a carrot? Oh, wait! He's dead!

[dubya]

My suggested approach starts with asking yourself a few questions (preferably well ahead of time - during an incident there will be too much going on to do a good job here):

1. Am I willing to risk being seriously injured or killed to protect my property?
2. What are my options for direct intervention while staying within the law?
3. Am I willing to act on the edge of justification where my actions could easily be interpreted as unlawful, at least initially, with the risk that I could be arrested on a felony, endanger my livelihood, and have my weapons seized and vindication, if it ever comes, may take years?
4. What is the law enforcement response time like where I live?
5. Is there a point where possible permanent loss of the property in question may be an acceptable option in order to achieve my objectives in the answers to questions 1 through 3?

My priority order for these incidents is:

1. Come through the incident alive.
2. Come through the incident without serious injuries to any innocent party (and ideally without serious injuries to anyone).
3. Stay solidly within the law so I don't incur $40,000 in legal bills in order to protect a $2500 trailer
4. Protect and retain the property that is rightfully mine.

Yes, I see now Excaliber you did/do tender serious thought on the question. My response was/is more superficial. I have reading glasses now and it is easier to follow a long discourse (my concentration is not what it used to be).

1. Am I willing to risk being seriously injured or killed to protect my property?
Property can be replaced. If that is a serious risk, no, if it is avoidable. But, how do we measure the risk level? Depends on the situation.
If the risk is low enough the answer is probably yes.
2. What are my options for direct intervention while staying within the law?
I don't care to brandish a weapon even on my own property. If a weapon is out it's because it is needed for protection and the possibilty of being used is real.
Before a firearm ever came out there would be a verbal admonishment - unless the perpetrators were in dangerous proximity.
3. Am I willing to act on the edge of justification where my actions could easily be interpreted as unlawful, at least initially, with the risk that I could be arrested on a felony, endanger my livelihood, and have my weapons seized and vindication, if it ever comes, may take years?
To this question the answer is no. However, if it is a clearly justified situation of self preservation it is a different matter.
4. What is the law enforcement response time like where I live?
The farm could take 15 minutes? Never had to try it. Sheriff's dept. There are parts of the farm where cell phones do not work so getting any response could be dicey. Have a house in town and everything would be different there because law enforcement is so accessible.
5. Is there a point where possible permanent loss of the property in question may be an acceptable option in order to achieve my objectives in the answers to questions 1 through 3?
Yes.
Seems like most of the answers above could change depending on the situation however.

Excaliber, I cannot do your questions justice because they are so couched in specificities that could vary so widely based on the situation. I think my "problem" with this whole topic is that in my mind I am rolling all of this property theft issue with criminals invading personal property into protection of the individual rather than the property.
I do think the OP should have interceded to protect his property.
He should have let the criminals flee when they chose that option. If the warning shots had been during the act to stop it and not after it would be different.
It looks like I am having a hard time seperating the "fear" of bodily harm by the same criminals that would steal property and/or trespass (with bad intent).
Excaliber, you appear to have the benefit of serious experience/analysis of these issues.
I do not know the answers; I don't plan on rolling over for any criminals however.
I just do not know. Actually kind of sorry I jumped in here. I am not sure you can analyze this situation in advance there are so many variables...

EDIT: one last point. It is difficult to seperate all of this into theory. Fact of the matter is that many petty crimes turn into assaults and even homicides when the perp is caught in the act. I guess this what-if analysis if good but when the situation presents itself there will be unique circumstances that will dictate actions. Everything is in a different light if the trespassers can potentially harm the victim.

[Excaliber]

My suggested approach starts with asking yourself a few questions (preferably well ahead of time - during an incident there will be too much going on to do a good job here):

1. Am I willing to risk being seriously injured or killed to protect my property?
2. What are my options for direct intervention while staying within the law?
3. Am I willing to act on the edge of justification where my actions could easily be interpreted as unlawful, at least initially, with the risk that I could be arrested on a felony, endanger my livelihood, and have my weapons seized and vindication, if it ever comes, may take years?
4. What is the law enforcement response time like where I live?
5. Is there a point where possible permanent loss of the property in question may be an acceptable option in order to achieve my objectives in the answers to questions 1 through 3?

My priority order for these incidents is:

1. Come through the incident alive.
2. Come through the incident without serious injuries to any innocent party (and ideally without serious injuries to anyone).
3. Stay solidly within the law so I don't incur $40,000 in legal bills in order to protect a $2500 trailer
4. Protect and retain the property that is rightfully mine.

Yes, I see now Excaliber you did/do tender serious thought on the question. My response was/is more superficial. I have reading glasses now and it is easier to follow a long discourse (my concentration is not what it used to be).

1. Am I willing to risk being seriously injured or killed to protect my property?
Property can be replaced. If that is a serious risk, no, if it is avoidable. But, how do we measure the risk level? Depends on the situation.
If the risk is low enough the answer is probably yes.
2. What are my options for direct intervention while staying within the law?
I don't care to brandish a weapon even on my own property. If a weapon is out it's because it is needed for protection and the possibilty of being used is real.
Before a firearm ever came out there would be a verbal admonishment - unless the perpetrators were in dangerous proximity.
3. Am I willing to act on the edge of justification where my actions could easily be interpreted as unlawful, at least initially, with the risk that I could be arrested on a felony, endanger my livelihood, and have my weapons seized and vindication, if it ever comes, may take years?
To this question the answer is no. However, if it is a clearly justified situation of self preservation it is a different matter.
4. What is the law enforcement response time like where I live?
The farm could take 15 minutes? Never had to try it. Sheriff's dept. There are parts of the farm where cell phones do not work so getting any response could be dicey. Have a house in town and everything would be different there because law enforcement is so accessible.
5. Is there a point where possible permanent loss of the property in question may be an acceptable option in order to achieve my objectives in the answers to questions 1 through 3?
Yes.
Seems like most of the answers above could change depending on the situation however.

Excaliber, I cannot do your questions justice because they are so couched in specificities that could vary so widely based on the situation. I think my "problem" with this whole topic is that in my mind I am rolling all of this property theft issue with criminals invading personal property into protection of the individual rather than the property.
I do think the OP should have interceded to protect his property.
He should have let the criminals flee when they chose that option. If the warning shots had been during the act to stop it and not after it would be different.
It looks like I am having a hard time seperating the "fear" of bodily harm by the same criminals that would steal property and/or trespass (with bad intent).
Excaliber, you appear to have the benefit of serious experience/analysis of these issues.
I do not know the answers; I don't plan on rolling over for any criminals however.
I just do not know. Actually kind of sorry I jumped in here. I am not sure you can analyze this situation in advance there are so many variables...

You have nothing to be sorry for, Dubya. Your confusion over what do do when protecting property and protecting life (and how quickly one can turn into the other) is very common. You're considerably ahead of many others in the same position because you're aware of it and you took the very significant step of reaching out for some answers, so I'll try to help as best I can.

First, let's take a look at the way you answered the first 5 questions. You answered them reasonably, by the way. While you're right that there are a lot of variables that could affect the answers in a specific situation, there are an awful lot of things that can be thought out in advance to make it a lot less confusing when time is short. Let's take a look at the way you answered the questions initially and let's see if we can't get things to come into a little sharper focus:

Question 1. You answered as many would - that you would take some risk to life and limb to protect property, but not if the risk was too high. You also ask the $64,000 question: How do you figure out the level of risk in a given situation?

Here are a couple of suggestions:

a. How many suspects are there? If more than 1, the risk level of exposing yourself is high. Also remember that if you see one, there's very likely at least one more.
b. Can a verbal challenge be done safely from a position of cover with a safe path of retreat to better cover? If it can be done from inside the residence, it's generally not a bad way to go. It may well cause the BG's to leave your property alone at very little risk to you. If not, it's probably not a good idea.
c. If you decide to challenge, how will you do it? Will you order them to leave now, or will you attempt a citizen's arrest? The first is a lot safer and simpler than the second, especially with a relatively long expected LE response time.
d. What would happen to other family members if you decide to go outside and are either overpowered or pinned down? Can you communicate your situation to them, and can they successfully defend themselves if necessary?
e. Is there another and less risky option for protecting the property other than exposed personal confrontation - an example would be the "call 911 and follow them in your own car" suggestion, or just provide the vehicle's tag number and description. Unless it's stolen, it usually quickly leads back to the folks involved.

Question 2. You answered that you wouldn't want to brandish a weapon, wouldn't display one unless it was "needed for protection," and you would warn before doing so.

Observations:

a. Good general answer, but a little fuzzy for guiding decisions in a specific situation when the adrenaline is pumping.
b. Distance and cover are your friends - the more distance you can maintain between you and the suspects, and the more hard cover and obstacles you can put between you and them, the safer you are. The reverse is also true - as distance and cover are reduced, the risk escalates - real quick! If you get close (about 30 feet or less) you're in serious danger of put in an instant shoot / no shoot decision situation if they do something aggressive - which they may well do if they are armed, or if they think they can overwhelm you. Unless you were caught outside in the first place, this is not where you want to be.
c. If you decide to challenge suspects, there's nothing wrong with being armed with a concealed weapon that can be readily brought into play if needed. If you use good tactics regarding distance and cover, many bad guys in Texas will assume you're doing so because you've had some training and are armed and will often decide they have something else they need to do someplace else right then.
d. You need to have a very clear knowledge of exactly what the law says on use of force for different situations, and be able to mentally "check off" that the elements needed to justify deadly force are present in a given situation before you bring a firearm into play. There's no substitute for knowing this part of the law like the back of your hand, and it's well worth the relatively small effort involved. Don't go by the unsupported opinions of others - there's lots of bad info out there, including in some posts on this forum. Read it firsthand and know for sure.

Question 3. You stated you are not willing to risk your freedom, livelihood, and assets by acting on the edge of justification. You qualified that by saying that situations where use of deadly force was clearly justified and necessary for self preservation would be a different matter.

Observations:

a. Good and reasonable call. I'd worry if you had just answered "yes."
b. If you face circumstances where use of deadly force is clearly justified and necessary for self preservation, you're not looking at an "edge of justification" situation and the question doesn't apply.
c. It's important to resolve this question ahead of time in your own mind so you don't end up using questionable or clearly unlawful force in the heat of the moment, and then have to pay a bunch of attorneys to come up with and take to trial a novel theory on how come it was OK later.

Question 4. Fifteen minutes isn't a bad rural response time at all for the farm, and in town times are generally shorter.

Observations:

a. It would be a good idea to contact both agencies and find out what they say you can reasonably expect under different circumstances. There may be differences between daytime and nighttime staffing, holiday staffing, etc. that could affect those numbers. They're also subject to change according to what else is happening. If there's a hostage situation or fatal accident somewhere nearby, response times for incoming incidents will lengthen. If you have to make an emergency call, it's also not a bad idea to ask for a response time estimate for that incident. It gives you much better info to work with.
b. You need to plan for protection of people during life threatening incidents (e.g., occupied home burglary) for those time frames. This may involve hardening a room as a safe room you can rapidly retreat to, identifying funnel points where an intruder who presents a deadly threat could be engaged in a very confined area (hallway, door to a wing of the house, etc.), identifying useful points of cover, considering what weapons would be appropriate and how they can be safely stored and still be available when needed, etc.

Question 5. You indicate that there is a point where you would accept loss of property to avoid high risk of serious injury or loss of life. This is clearly the most rational answer, but if the decision isn't made in advance, it's really easy to get in over your head in a fast breaking situation and not realize it until it's too late to change course.

You did really well here. Were the observations above at all helpful for clearing up some of the confusion you've experienced?

So far, this is all background and0would only be helpful if it provides useful guidance on concrete actions to take in a real situation.

If you're up for it, how about tackling the suggested 4 priorities to see if they're a good fit for you, and then applying your answers to the questions and the priorities to evaluate the options I suggested for resolving the situation you posed (or a better solution if you've got one.)?