TexasCHLforum.com

A drunk tried to drive through my in-laws house at about 0200 this morning. Fortunately, their van took the brunt of the impact before taking part of the garage and front door. The drunk's car spun and took out both garage doors and the center support ending up about 3 feet inside the garage. She tried to drive away, but the car was messed up so bad she couldn't get halfway out of the driveway. Then she bailed and tried to run away, but one of the neighbors that heard the crash saw her taking off and told the police which direction she went and they caught her a couple blocks away.

DUI, hit and run, literally, and multiple other traffic violations. I'm thinking those first two are felonies. So, before I asked my question that you probably already see coming I'll preface it with the caveat that it would probably be an extremely bad idea and very unlikely that I would even do it. However, if I had been the one seeing her flee and tried to stop her does the law give me justification in using deadly force to do that? Would it be different if it were my car and house she crashed into?

C-dub wrote:A drunk tried to drive through my in-laws house at about 0200 this morning. Fortunately, their van took the brunt of the impact before taking part of the garage and front door. The drunk's car spun and took out both garage doors and the center support ending up about 3 feet inside the garage. She tried to drive away, but the car was messed up so bad she couldn't get halfway out of the driveway. Then she bailed and tried to run away, but one of the neighbors that heard the crash saw her taking off and told the police which direction she went and they caught her a couple blocks away.

DUI, hit and run, literally, and multiple other traffic violations. I'm thinking those first two are felonies. So, before I asked my question that you probably already see coming I'll preface it with the caveat that it would probably be an extremely bad idea and very unlikely that I would even do it. However, if I had been the one seeing her flee and tried to stop her does the law give me justification in using deadly force to do that? Would it be different if it were my car and house she crashed into?

I would think not. The attack was unintentional in the first place; the person is fleeing, and they are not fleeing with your property. I don't think you have a lawful authority to back-shoot them.

That is definitely breaking and entering.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

C-dub wrote:A drunk tried to drive through my in-laws house at about 0200 this morning. Fortunately, their van took the brunt of the impact before taking part of the garage and front door. The drunk's car spun and took out both garage doors and the center support ending up about 3 feet inside the garage. She tried to drive away, but the car was messed up so bad she couldn't get halfway out of the driveway. Then she bailed and tried to run away, but one of the neighbors that heard the crash saw her taking off and told the police which direction she went and they caught her a couple blocks away.

DUI, hit and run, literally, and multiple other traffic violations. I'm thinking those first two are felonies. So, before I asked my question that you probably already see coming I'll preface it with the caveat that it would probably be an extremely bad idea and very unlikely that I would even do it. However, if I had been the one seeing her flee and tried to stop her does the law give me justification in using deadly force to do that? Would it be different if it were my car and house she crashed into?

I would think not. The attack was unintentional in the first place; the person is fleeing, and they are not fleeing with your property. I don't think you have a lawful authority to back-shoot them.

I also agree with the OP that it would be an extremely bad idea.

Yeah, I didn't think so, but wasn't sure. I haven't been able to sleep and have been up since the crash. I think I need to go back and lay down.

hit and run i thought is a felony right?
so stoping someone in the commison of a felony wouldnt be justified?
I know it would be a hard sale to a court however.

cheezit wrote:hit and run i thought is a felony right?
so stoping someone in the commison of a felony wouldnt be justified?
I know it would be a hard sale to a court however.

Legally, you are allowed to arrest and detain someone committing a felony.

However, you do not have automatic justification to use deadly force. You can use "reasonable" force. Also, if you get the situation wrong, you are also subject to being charged for unlawfully detaining someone.

Now, "reasonable" force might be grabbing someone and holding them. If they start attacking you where you are in fear of death or serious bodily injury, the use of deadly force could become justified for self-defense, but it is not justified for simply detaining a felon.

That is a long-winded way of saying I have a really hard time visualizing myself getting involved in making a citizen's arrest. Generally, I pay taxes for a police presence and I'd prefer to let them do the job they are trained to do.

Jumping Frog wrote:

cheezit wrote:hit and run i thought is a felony right?
so stoping someone in the commison of a felony wouldnt be justified?
I know it would be a hard sale to a court however.

Legally, you are allowed to arrest and detain someone committing a felony.

However, you do not have automatic justification to use deadly force. You can use "reasonable" force. Also, if you get the situation wrong, you are also subject to being charged for unlawfully detaining someone.

Now, "reasonable" force might be grabbing someone and holding them. If they start attacking you where you are in fear of death or serious bodily injury, the use of deadly force could become justified for self-defense, but it is not justified for simply detaining a felon.

That is a long-winded way of saying I have a really hard time visualizing myself getting involved in making a citizen's arrest. Generally, I pay taxes for a police presence and I'd prefer to let them do the job they are trained to do.

makes sense Thank you

I feel a little better after a few hours rest this afternoon and have re-read 9.42. A could be justified in using deadly force to prevent someone from fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime. Although neither of these happened in this incident, murder and aggravated assault are neither of those, which means the use of deadly force would not be justifiable to prevent someone that had just committed either of those from fleeing? How does that make sense? It seems like I might be missing something. Am I or is that it?

And there is one major caveat on all of those laws that many people forget. You need to know the law. For example, you may legally arrest a person committing a felony in your presence or view. But they have to be committing a felony. DWI is normally a misdemeanor and only becomes a felony on the third case or in a few other very specific cases. Hit and run is only a felony when the accident involves injuries to someone. If it is just property damage, it is a class B misdemeanor.

And the reason murder and aggravated assault are not mentioned in section 9.42 is that is the section on defending yourself from property crimes. Those two are covered in section 9.32 on deadly force in defense of person.

Criminal mischief?

I am not going to shoot somebody for running away after a dwi and attempt to leave the scene of an accident. If she left the car behind they will know who she is. Doing what was done is the right thing to do. No where in your post did I read anybody was in fear for their safety or the safety of others.... I would recommend a good photo for this thread so we can see the damage.

Monday I would hire a lawyer and file a civil suit against her.

texanjoker wrote:I am not going to shoot somebody for running away after a dwi and attempt to leave the scene of an accident. If she left the car behind they will know who she is. Doing what was done is the right thing to do. No where in your post did I read anybody was in fear for their safety or the safety of others.... I would recommend a good photo for this thread so we can see the damage.

Monday I would hire a lawyer and file a civil suit against her.

oooo, I like that!

Sorry to hear about the house. I'm glad no one was hurt. Letting her run was the right thing to do. I wonder if she is going to try the old "Hello police? My car was stolen." or, "I wasn't drunk, I just lost control of the car and got scared and ran." If they don't track her down pretty quickly they may have a hard time proving she was intoxicated. There was a case like that in Austin recently. Lady ran someone down and was prosecuted for the hit and run, but they had a hard time proving she was drunk as it was the next morning before they tracked her down.

I wasn't the one that let her run. It was another neighbor. We do live next door to my in-laws, but we didn't hear anything. My MIL called me to tell me she needed me.

The police caught her running a couple blocks away.

Civil suit, hmmm? I'm pretty sure the police confirmed she has insurance and my MIL has already been in contact with them Saturday morning.

Don't laugh, but I still don't know how to upload any of my pictures here. My MIL took some and if I knew how to upload them I might put one or two up.

Also, thanks Steve. I knew it would have been a very bad idea, but thought there was a justification. Good to know there isn't after all.