car break in

[rm9792]

TPC says .

A 911 operator is not a peace officer, so therefor has no valid control over his movements. In addition, like I stated, he was no billed because the burglar rushed him. There was a valid threat on his health.

:

A 911 operator might very well be a patrolman. Quite often they sit in for someone who is off or lunch or something.

[Ameer]

There's that annoying little caveat that one must believe the property cannot be recovered by any other means.

Ask any big city burglary detective what percentage of burglars are caught and all the stolen property recovered.

[GrayGhost]

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...

It is likely one would not have to shoot or watch. Just yell, "HEY!!!" The burglars aren't going to wait around and see where the yell came from. They are going to RUN. Unless they already had the merchandise in hand, they won't have it when they are running away.

[jamisjockey]

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.

I don't leave guns in the cars for the exact same reason.

But, the car is my property. If I choose to leave a gun in there, I should be able to have reasonable expectation that in a civilized society, the gun will be there in the morning.

Also, I'm pretty good friends with my neighbors. If one of them told me they kept a gun in the glove box, and I witnessed a break in to their vehicle, I would consider the use of deadly force to keep that gun from going into the hands of a criminal. Obviously, I would only do so if the fact pattern was there so that I'd be sure my application of deadly force was just.

[Katygunnut]

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...

It is likely one would not have to shoot or watch. Just yell, "HEY!!!" The burglars aren't going to wait around and see where the yell came from. They are going to RUN. Unless they already had the merchandise in hand, they won't have it when they are running away.

Personally, I think this is the best course of action. Of course, I would also have a gun with me just in case, but scaring them away sure beats letting them take your stuff while you wait for the police and also beats the hassle of a justified shooting.

[drjoker]

Zero4o3 is right, Under Texas Penal Code 9.42, you are justified to use LETHAL force to stop theft of property during the nighttime. Yes, you can shoot 'em in the back while they're fleeing, even. On November 3, 2009, a 8 month pregnant woman shot and killed a car thief with a shotgun from her 2nd story apartment window. This happened at the Pinemont Forest Apartments in the 5900 block of Pinemont Street in Houston. She was RELEASED WITHOUT CHARGES and the police even helped to relocate her and her family so that the thug's friends and family won't harm her for revenge. She did not incur even one red cent in lawyer's fees. God bless Texas!

That said, I personally won't shoot an unarmed man. BEFORE I carry a gun, I'll make sure that I'm carrying a flashlight and pepper spray. The flashlight is to make sure of what I'm shooting at in the dark before I do any shooting. It's dark out and you can't see clearly. What if it's a friend of a friend who has your wife's permission to fetch something from the car? If you kill the wrong person, you can't reverse death. That's why you have to be 100% sure before you pull that trigger. So, even though it is legal to shoot a perp in this situation, it would be highly unwise to do so without absolutely identifying the situation correctly. It is entirely justified for you to protect your property. It is entirely justified for you to defend your life if the perp attacks you while you are protecting said property. Just be sure to carry a flashlight and do it wisely.

In other words, although legal, I would highly recommend AGAINST shooting in such a situation. What if it's not a car thief and you shoot someone your spouse gave permission to get something out of your car? What if it really is a perp and he shoots back? I would advise against it and I certainly wouldn't do it, but if you did it and it really was a perp, I would never convict if I were on the jury. I'm certainly no hero, but if there's one thing that this world needs is more heroes and less sheeple. God bless Texas

[jframe.38]

Although technically justified to use lethal force to prevent theft at nightime, I believe that it is not necessarily the best answer to immediately resort to lethal force for burglary of a motor vehicle and or theft. Using the theft during night time defense will not work in most states other than Texas as well. Additionally this justification is only good during the night time. The law does not clearly define exactly what night time means. I believe that there are very few to none pieces of property that are worth the enormous legal bills one would incur going before the grand jury.

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.

PC §9.43.

PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

PC §9.44.

Some better answers may include taking pictures, calling the police, sounding of that the police are en route and to leave now. Additionally if you completely believe that you must stop someone from taking your property (which I can certainly empathize with) the penal code allows for the use of force but not lethal force during all hours in order to recover your property. See quote below.

PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

PC §9.42.

I am not recommending that anyone use force to respond to a property crime. If you choose to use force to stop someone from commiting a property crime, then maybe saying stop followed by leave my property alone and leave now. While doing so bring a robust, legal non-lethal defensive device that you are trained to use (taser, stun gun, small commercially available chemical dispenser designed for self defense (pepper spray)). If at that point the criminal decides not to leave and continues to escalate, and is not presenting a threat of lethal force or serious bodily injury then you have an intermediate weapon and can respond not react by defending yourself and your property. If the criminal decided to escalate by presenting a threat of serious bodily injury or death, then you can respond, not react with lethal force (your chl). At that point the justification for homicide is based on classic self-defense (you were a totally innoncent victim who tried to recover his property when a criminal actor presented the abilitiy, opportunity and intent to cause you serious bodily injury or death. I think that if you follow this course of events you would have a much more robust justification then using the old theft during the night time justification.

My personal belief is that immediately jumping to lethal force under a justification that only applies during the nighttime and not in every state is not the best option. That's just my personal opinion. I understand, empathize with and respect others on this forum who would be willing to use justified lethal force under the laws of Texas for property crime. I personally do not think that it is worth the legal and financial mess that would be caused by doing so.

[jamisjockey]

No offense, but this isn't "every other state". We're following a given fact pattern by the OP applying to Texas penal code.

[jframe.38]

jamisjockey:

A great many of the people on this forum use the reciprocity agreements that Texas has negotiated with other states to carry while we travel to those states. The topic was lethal force in response to a burglary of a motor vehicle. Most Texas CHL instructors, lethal force instructors or NRA instructors of personal protection inside the home and personal protection outside the home will strongly advise against using lethal force to protect "mere property" even though justified under limited circumstances.

[zero4o3]

Zero4o3 is right, Under Texas Penal Code 9.42, you are justified to use LETHAL force to stop theft of property during the nighttime. Yes, you can shoot 'em in the back while they're fleeing, even. On November 3, 2009, a 8 month pregnant woman shot and killed a car thief with a shotgun from her 2nd story apartment window. This happened at the Pinemont Forest Apartments in the 5900 block of Pinemont Street in Houston. She was RELEASED WITHOUT CHARGES and the police even helped to relocate her and her family so that the thug's friends and family won't harm her for revenge. She did not incur even one red cent in lawyer's fees. God bless Texas!

That said, I personally won't shoot an unarmed man. BEFORE I carry a gun, I'll make sure that I'm carrying a flashlight and pepper spray. The flashlight is to make sure of what I'm shooting at in the dark before I do any shooting. It's dark out and you can't see clearly. What if it's a friend of a friend who has your wife's permission to fetch something from the car? If you kill the wrong person, you can't reverse death. That's why you have to be 100% sure before you pull that trigger. So, even though it is legal to shoot a perp in this situation, it would be highly unwise to do so without absolutely identifying the situation correctly. It is entirely justified for you to protect your property. It is entirely justified for you to defend your life if the perp attacks you while you are protecting said property. Just be sure to carry a flashlight and do it wisely.

and I agree with you almost 100%, I would not shoot some one trying to break into MY car but I would stop them, what it takes to get them to stop is their choice at that point.

[jamisjockey]

jamisjockey:

A great many of the people on this forum use the reciprocity agreements that Texas has negotiated with other states to carry while we travel to those states. The topic was lethal force in response to a burglary of a motor vehicle. Most Texas CHL instructors, lethal force instructors or NRA instructors of personal protection inside the home and personal protection outside the home will strongly advise against using lethal force to protect "mere property" even though justified under limited circumstances.

Which is why someone should always check the laws of another state before carrying there.
But the fact of the matter is that when we receive a Texas CHL, we are only trained in the laws of the state of Texas.
And following the OP's fact pattern, as presented, deadly force would be authorized in the state of Texas.
And, as someone else put it in this thread, the criminal choose the value of their own life when they choose to commit crimes against other persons.
I'm the last person to advocate shooting first under every single justifcation under Texas law. Allowing crime to continue unfettered, however, is contributing to the demise of the civilized society.

[Dragonfighter]

I am sorry, but questions like this from the OP have me concerned about the mentality of some people that have concealed carry licenses.

Why? Under stress you will default to your level of training. Mental exercises in shoot/no shoot, justified vs. right all add to your level of training and mental preparedness.

What ifs like, "What if EVERYTHING he owned was in the car. His tools to make a living..."

As discussed, "What if you know there is a gun in the car."

Lighten up.

[alvins]

I am sorry, but questions like this from the OP have me concerned about the mentality of some people that have concealed carry licenses.

why dont you go ahead and share. have a nice day

[OldSchool]

I am sorry, but questions like this from the OP have me concerned about the mentality of some people that have concealed carry licenses.

I resemble that remark!!!

[tacticool]

Most Texas CHL instructors, lethal force instructors or NRA instructors of personal protection inside the home and personal protection outside the home will strongly advise against using lethal force to protect "mere property" even though justified under limited circumstances.

I strongly advise criminal dirtbags who don't want to get shot in Texas to go straight.

If they're unwilling to give up their parasitic criminal lifestyle, then move where the peasants are disarmed by the criminals running the government.