TexasCHLforum.com

I just took the class and I am trying to understand this clause of deadly force to protect property. "The land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means." Can someone give examples of this in every day terms?

Insurance would be the big one.
Shooting someone to stop them from stealing your TV which is insured under your home would be in contrast to this rule.

Has nothing to do with insurance, since, if you are collecting insurance on it, that is de-facto proof it was NOT protected or recovered.

It has to do with portability in most cases I am aware of. Vehicles, valuables, (even livestock) - tangible, movable property, that if stolen, will never be seen again.

Here is one of the more well-known examples:

In Killing of Repo Man, Law Shields the Killer

I agree with Renegade. Insurance does not "recover" your property. In most cases of theft, the deductible doesn't even cover the value of the stolen property. Cash is not covered by insurance.

There is also property that cannot be replaced, like unique works of art and things with sentimental value.

If this clause has ever been given a clear meaning, it's in some case law that I'm not aware of.

- Jim

Laneman wrote:I just took the class and I am trying to understand this clause of deadly force to protect property. "The land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means." Can someone give examples of this in every day terms?

It is good that you are attempting to understand the law. I agree with Renegade.

I would also ask you to consider this; If the person is escaping with your TV, and you shoot him, he will drop your TV and you will have to replace it anyway. ;)

I thought of a scenario where you would have "other means": If you know the thief on sight, you can call the police and file a complaint.

BTW, the article that Renegade linked to said that the killing was justified by the prevention of theft in the night time clause, not recovery of stolen property.

Also, I am not related to the Casey mentioned in the article. I am not related to anyone named Casey that you ever heard of.

- Jim

The insurance statement was given to be by my instructor. He quoted case law and I am trying to locate the case law to support it.

I will advise if I find it.

Give a Anti DA the words "Recovered by ANY Means" and you could have an issue.

My instructor said if it can be replaced by insurance a CHL cannot shoot. He said an irreplaceable heirloom would make the shooting justified. Too much legal mumbo jumbo. I don't think I would shoot someone stealing my TV anyway, I just want to know the laws.

I'd love to see someone put that DA on the stand and ask what types of stolen property have a 100% recovery rate. 99.9%? 99%?

Personally, I might choose to allow a criminal to escape with my property for reasons of my own. However, I would have an obligation to vote "not guilty" as a juror.

Laneman wrote:My instructor said if it can be replaced by insurance a CHL cannot shoot. He said an irreplaceable heirloom would make the shooting justified. Too much legal mumbo jumbo. I don't think I would shoot someone stealing my TV anyway, I just want to know the laws.

I really wish some CHL instructors would keep opinions....OPINIONS!

My TV's and most of my other possessions are inside my house. In order for someone to steal them, they too must be inside. Under Sec. 9.32 there is a presumption that the use of deadly force is reasonable if a person unlawfully and with force enters one's house.

So in that instance, the use of deadly force would be deemed to be reasonable (in most circumstances) as a matter of self defense. The property angle (the TV) wouldn't even come into it.

Quote: "I really wish some CHL instructors would keep opinions....OPINIONS!"

What I suggest that students think about (in advance) is: What property do you own that is really worth the probable expense and grief involved after typical shootings of another human?

Renegade wrote: Here is one of the more well-known examples:

In Killing of Repo Man, Law Shields the Killer

I know this isnt a popular opinion but the repo guy is doing his job. If you dont make the payments then you have to give back. You dont "own" the vehicle, IMO, until it is paid for. They arent "stealing" your car they are taking their property back. If a repo man is shot then prison time is due.

rm9792 wrote:If a repo man is shot then prison time is due.

That is what the case hinged on. Did he know it was a repo man, or did he think it was a car thief?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the intent of the law is to take another life just because they are stealing your stuff.

The intent of the law is clearing the way for self-defense while we are in the process of protecting our stuff.

If someone is stealing your stuff, it is very likely in your home, office or car. The general idea is that the person is there to take something and if you get in the way, there is a high probability they are armed and/or willing to cause serious physical harm. If you wish to protect your stuff in your home, office, or car you can engage all the way up to deadly force if that's what it takes to defend yourself, while defending your property.

At night if someone is stealing your stuff or commiting a crime, you are at a further disadvantage due to the fact you can't see well, so self-defense measures are even more lax.

Makes sense to me and thank goodness the Lawmakers still have enough common sense to help us defend ourselves.

To the thread question...I think I would need to pause if someone were stealing my hubcaps at night and they didn't know I was watching. Is it really worth risking my life to protect the hubcaps? Even though they may not realize that by Law, they are risking theirs.