TexasCHLforum.com

Shoot
Shovel
Shut up

Unless your currently in Houston or surrounding communities, then it's
Gun
Gator
Gone!

bayou wrote:It wouldn't be the criminal courts but the civil courts one would have to worry about...

Ummm no. You are protected from civil suit in a justified self defense shooting under Texas law.

anygunanywhere wrote:

bayou wrote:It wouldn't be the criminal courts but the civil courts one would have to worry about...

Ummm no. You are protected from civil suit in a justified self defense shooting under Texas law.

The law still allows them to file, but it'd have to be a pretty stupid lawyer to take a civil case where a shooting was justified.

jmorris wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

bayou wrote:It wouldn't be the criminal courts but the civil courts one would have to worry about...

Ummm no. You are protected from civil suit in a justified self defense shooting under Texas law.

The law still allows them to file, but it'd have to be a pretty stupid lawyer to take a civil case where a shooting was justified.

......unless he/she could get a nice retainer up front? It's all about the money, not what's right or wrong.

nightmare69 wrote:I would prefer capturing the looter and removing their dominant hand.

I'm thinking along the lines of neutering, so they don't reproduce. Our member Puma has just the tool for the job:

From the code for your reference:

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE

TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT

CHAPTER 83. USE OF FORCE OR DEADLY FORCE

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007.

anygunanywhere wrote:From the code for your reference:

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE

TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT

CHAPTER 83. USE OF FORCE OR DEADLY FORCE

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007.

...and that justification has to be proven in court by the defendant AND his mouthpiece.

Oldgringo wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:From the code for your reference:

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE

TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT

CHAPTER 83. USE OF FORCE OR DEADLY FORCE

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007.

...and that justification has to be proven in court by the defendant AND his mouthpiece.

Point taken, which is why neutering is better.

Court or no court, I think in an emergency situation like this, you'll probably be OK (if you can afford it), if you're shooting looters of your home, or perhaps a neighbor's home - which begs the question, "do two pieces of property have to be contiguous to be 'neighbors'?" But I don't think you'll have a legal leg to stand on if you're cruising around your neighborhood, or part of town, and shooting looters of properties to which you have no personal connection. Your only defense then would be if they fired on you first, and you returned fire in self defense; and absent bullet holes above the waterline in your jon boat (holes below the waterline renders everything moot), or holes in your person as proof, it would be very much a debatable matter. If you're ever involved in a shooting, you DON'T want it to be debatable whether or not you needed to shoot.......unless you're drinking buddies with every juror on the panel, the judge, the DA, and the investigating officers.

In other words, if you're the victim of the looting, you're golden. If you're not the victim of the looting, hurricane Harvey is not a license to go looter-hunting. There is no open season on looters. Maybe there should be, but there ain't — having a LTC badge, sash or tiara notwithstanding.

I thought the legislature passed a law last session to allow hunting looters from helicopters.

From Texas Penal Code Chapter 9.

Not a looter hunting license but if your neighbors ask you to watch their stuff, well, do it. This is really no different than what we have discussed here many times in defense of our own property. Back before Ike, all my neighbors and I gatehered together and discussed the possibility of looters and what we would do to defend each other and our property.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.41. 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

rotor wrote:Remember the armed home invasion in Canada where the homeowner wrestled the gun from the bad guys and shot one of them. Totally illegal in Canada and they are prosecuting the homeowner. Interesting comments though...

Shoot
Shovel
Shut up

I think in Texas it would be hard to find a jury that would convict but there is the legal expense.

Didn't some whack job do that in PA recently? I think he's going away for a VERY long time.

crazy2medic wrote:Unless your currently in Houston or surrounding communities, then it's
Gun
Gator
Gone!

That sounds like the bayou version of "feed the hogs."

ninjabread wrote:

crazy2medic wrote:Unless your currently in Houston or surrounding communities, then it's
Gun
Gator
Gone!

That sounds like the bayou version of "feed the hogs."

Yes!

'You Loot We Shoot': Texans Lay Down the Law After Harvey

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/09/04/h ... es-robbers

bayou wrote:It wouldn't be the criminal courts but the civil courts one would have to worry about...

I think it is a good time to pass legislation strengthening our civil indemnity by requiring that all attorney's fees be paid by the losing party if a shooting is determined to be justified. The looting would give it good political cover, but it could be more broad than just looting. Too bad the state legislature is not in session right now.