car break in

[philip964]

I remember a case many years ago where a man did shoot and kill a robber at night breaking into his car from a second story apartment window. He heard his car alarm go off and killed the man with a hunting rifle with a scope. He was no billed. Don't know if it was in the back. But it was his car not a neighbors.

[jamisjockey]

TPC says nothing about replacement nor insurance. And it singles out movable property for a reason. And even if they are caught, the property will have likely been sold off already.

Do you think that the police will do a full crime scene work up on a stolen stereo? Good luck with that. In most places, the police are already too busy with other crimes, or busting speeders.

Remember, Joe Horn got no billed AFTER being told by the 911 operator to stay inside, and then saying he was going to go out and shoot the burglars.

[jamisjockey]

Yep. Totally hypothetical.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/21507620/detail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Considering the phrase "reasonable person" appears in most of the justifications for deadly force in TPC, under your assumptions there is no reasonable way you can apply deadly force as a civilian in the State of Texas.


Something else to consider:
What about the moral implications of allowing crime to continue unfettered? By not stopping or at least interferring in witnessed crimes, are we just teaching criminals that they can and will continue to get away with it?

As I stated before, I've got no interest in shooting someone over property. But the justifications under TPC cannot be ignored.

[Afff_667]

A human life is worth more than a $50 CD player.

That's exactly what the bad guys are coming to count on these days when doing bad things to decent, law abiding folks. Watch the news and you'll see that even the bad guys' families will chime in with that rationale whether the perpetrator was given a long sentence/stiff penalty or was killed during the commission of a crime. As far as I'm concerned, the bad guy makes the decision as to what his life is worth when he decides to commit the crime.

I don't agree with the increasingly popular sentiment that we should allow a crime to occur and rely on the police or insurance to restore us. I've seen this attitude expressed in the news, as well. Someone gets shot while committing a burglary, and the family shows up on TV saying how insurance would have replaced what was taken and that "they didn't have to shoot my baby." Statute pretty well addresses the use of deadly force, but we have potential jurors who are being swayed by that way of thinking and ignoring the root cause of the crime - an individual's conscious decision to break the law.

I'm certainly not advocating vigilantism or shooting someone in the back, and I acknowledge that using deadly force could open up a can of worms more difficult and expensive to deal with than paying an insurance deductible and replacing a car stereo. However, I can't help but think about someone who is a small businessperson, a plumber for example, who carries her tools in her van from day to day rather than taking time to empty out and reload the vehicle every evening and morning. She catches three bad guys at 0400 breaking into her van and attempting to take her tools and other supplies...her very livelihood. She calls 911, but (no disrespect) when seconds count, the police are minutes away. She's armed and capable of putting rounds where they need to go. Should she stand by with a video camera and watch the means of putting food on the table, clothes on her childrens' backs, and keeping the lights and heat on fade into the night? Or, should she defend her property?

[Rex B]

I had the very same thing happen to me about 15 years ago.
Quiet residential street, a cul-de-sac of sorts. Very quiet at night, at the time. You could hear a conversation several houses away.
We slept in a 2nd floor bedroom overlooking the street, and we kept the window open in nice weather.
One night the wife pokes me awake "there's a noise outside"
We look out to see, about 3 houses down, two guys bent over the driver's door of neighbor Billy's pickup.
So I get my robe on and go downstair,s lights still off, and observe from the front porch. Wife is calling the cops upstairs.
A few moments later I hear glass break as they pop the vent window.
So I whistled.
Their heads popped up, they saw me. I'm 6'4" and had on a white robe, couldn't miss me.
They start walking fast back to their car, which I now realize is parked right across the street from my house, about 40 feet away.
They got in and drove off, thankfully.

About then I remembered I had a nice 12-gage pump in the closet.
This was pre-CHL for me, and also prior to Castle Law.

Never would have occurred to me to shoot them.
But if it happens again I'll have something in my hand. Just in case.
I've since wondered what would have happened had I racked that shotgun instead of whistling.

But the outcome was pretty good. Cops showed up to write the reports. \
Cost the neighbor one broken vent window, instead of a replacement vehicle.
This car had only liability insurance. Billy was profusely thankful.

[steveincowtown]

There is a big difference between the "Legal" thing to do, and "Right" thing to do. (INAL, etc. etc.) But I would have a hard time justifying shooting someone in the back to recover property that was not mine. To be variables when it is not your car (would the Neighbor say they had specifically told you to stay out of their business, never implied they would like you to help protect their property, etc.). If it was my car, and on my property (i.e. not a common area like a parking lot) I would exercise my rights to the full extent allowed by the letter of the law. First, if they rob your home or car once and get anything, the odds of them returning for a 2nd round are pretty high (wikilaw says appx. 50%). Will they return when just your kids are home? Will the return as your wife is falling asleep by herself because you are out of town on business? Second, the odds of you shooting someone during the first and last crime they will ever commit are real slim. It is only a matter of time before they victimize someone else. I think Afff_67 comment is brilliant, the crook has already decided what his life is worth.

[Katygunnut]

To answer the OP's hypothetical question, if this was my car, I would ensure that my presence was known and that should cause them to disperse and stop their attempted robbery. If not, then they have apparently decided to risk their lives for whatever they think I have in my car. Not a wise decision IMHO, but who am I to say that I know more than they do about what their life is worth? I would not shoot them in the back.

IANAL, but I have a hard time believing that a reasonable person would believe that stolen property will be recovered after it is taken by the theives. In a court case, the exact stats could be presented, but I have a hard time believing that stolen property would be likely to be recovered (meaning a greater than 50% chance of this happening). If I was to live my life in fear of the personal predjuices of individual jurors as opposed to the actual requirements of the law, then I would not choose to own or carry any firearms.

[Beiruty]

Maybe we should look into non-leathal weapons, such as nets-gun, foam/glue gun, etc.

[Katygunnut]

Maybe we should look into non-leathal weapons, such as nets-gun, foam/glue gun, etc.

There was a James Bond movie (can't recall which one, but I think it was the Roger Moore era) where his car had a little sticker that said "Warning - this car is equipped with a security system". The BG looked at it, shrugged and smashed in the window. The car exploded killing the BG.

Probably a bit much for a private citizen to have on their car, but it sure would be a good deterrent

[gigag04]

Based on how it's described it could be any number of things.

High schol kids playing a prank on someone for instance. Why try on one of the lighter justifications for deadly force just because you can.

When using deadly force I think we focus on "need to" and not "can."

[Dragonfighter]

Only for sure would I consider shooting them in the exact scenerio you posted if I knew there was a gun in the car they might be stealing. I don't think I could stand there and watch them steal a gun.

I struggled with this for a long time as I had weapons in all of my vehicles. The "what ifs" like what if they then killed someone with my weapon they had found, after I watched them drive away. I removed the dilemma by taking the inconvenient step of bringing in our "car guns" every time.

[wheelgun1958]

Considering the phrase "reasonable person" appears in most of the justifications for deadly force in TPC, under your assumptions there is no reasonable way you can apply deadly force as a civilian in the State of Texas.[/i]

If you are not in the military and subject to the UCMJ, you are a civilian.

[zero4o3]

Russell, totally justified. Respectfully, under TPC, you're wrong

Jamis, you need to read a little further down:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means;


You would be hard pressed to say the contents of your car cannot be recovered by *ANY OTHER MEANS*. You would also be hard pressed to get a jury to side with you that shooting somebody for breaking into you or your neighbor's car, when they are not threatening you or your neighbor's life, is justified.

The reason that Joe Horn did not stand trail is not because he was defending his neighbor's property, but because when he went outside with his shotgun the burglar rushed him.

I stand by my statement.

PC §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; or6
2 TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS
(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.

and if you read down a little further also, its 3 vs 1 the use of any other force other then deadly force would definitly expose the actor to a substantial risk of death or injury.

Yes we have the option to not do anything and call the police, but we also are allowed to protect are properity and in this case I dont see why deadly force would not be justified, not saying its the correct choice though

[alvins]

well it wasnt high school kids. i basically live in the middle of the ghetto in a nice neighborhood.our complex has a lot of issues with car break ins and such. mostly people leaving things in their car easily seen and valuble. i choose to park my work truck outside with nothing in it but some hamburger wrappers. I rent a garage for my motorcycle and my other truck which is a lot nicer so its usually not see from prying eyes. if someone wants to break into my 94 ranger with pealing paint,250,000 miles on the clock,ragged out interior, then they are not very good at what they do.which accually was parked right beside the car getting broken into.