TexasCHLforum.com

http://abcnews.go.com/US/gun-toting-pas ... d=25646686" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Day time. He holds her at gun point until police arrive. Story says no charges will be filed against him. I can agree with that decision, but was he really within the boundaries of the law by holding her at gun point? It seems this could have easily gone a different direction.

Texas law justifies force to stop theft, if necessary.

victory wrote:Texas law justifies force to stop theft, if necessary.

Does it justify lethal force? This is a question, not a criticism.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

victory wrote:Texas law justifies force to stop theft, if necessary.

Does it justify lethal force? This is a question, not a criticism.

Here's how I unpack that question.....

I catch someone inside of my residence or place of business stealing stuff.... I have two choices: hold them, or let them go. I have a right to hold them. They do not have a right to leave......at least that is how I see it.....unless I give them permission to leave. They've been caught in a crime. I don't want them to get away with it. I do want them to pay a criminal penalty, so that they will think twice about it the next time. If I turn them loose, they not only evade consequences, but I've just turned a criminal loose to prey on my neighbors. So it seems to me that the right thing to do is to hold them. But I have no way of holding them without a threat of force if they do not comply. If they turn and run, I'm probably not going to back-shoot the person to stop them......not as long as I've already recovered the items they attempted to steal. If they comply and lay face down until the boys in blue get there, then I'm happy. On the other hand, IF the bad guy decides that his path to freedom is over my horizontal body, then deadly force is definitely called for to defend myself. After all, once he's got me on the ground, what's to stop him from trying to kill me to eliminate a witness? Or, to stop him from stealing my cash and IDs?

The threat of deadly force is what is to stop him.......so holding him at gunpoint it is.

At least, that's how I break it down. But like I said, if I tried to hold him, and he cut and run, I'm not going to back-shoot him over something that I've already recovered.

Did he stop her before or after she grabbed the package, can he prove her intent was to steal it if she never left the property/touched the package?

If necessary...

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. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... bwG2z.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She was stealing packages off his front porch. Yes, she was trespassing. Please, don't take this like I am defending her.
I guess I am hung up on "reasonably believes that..." I wonder if, with a more liberal PD, his actions wouldn't have been questioned as to how could he have "reasonably believed" he couldn't recover his property in any other way.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

victory wrote:Texas law justifies force to stop theft, if necessary.

Does it justify lethal force? This is a question, not a criticism.

Here's how I unpack that question.....

I catch someone inside of my residence or place of business stealing stuff.... I have two choices: hold them, or let them go. I have a right to hold them. They do not have a right to leave......at least that is how I see it.....unless I give them permission to leave. They've been caught in a crime. I don't want them to get away with it. I do want them to pay a criminal penalty, so that they will think twice about it the next time. If I turn them loose, they not only evade consequences, but I've just turned a criminal loose to prey on my neighbors. So it seems to me that the right thing to do is to hold them. But I have no way of holding them without a threat of force if they do not comply. If they turn and run, I'm probably not going to back-shoot the person to stop them......not as long as I've already recovered the items they attempted to steal. If they comply and lay face down until the boys in blue get there, then I'm happy. On the other hand, IF the bad guy decides that his path to freedom is over my horizontal body, then deadly force is definitely called for to defend myself. After all, once he's got me on the ground, what's to stop him from trying to kill me to eliminate a witness? Or, to stop him from stealing my cash and IDs?

The threat of deadly force is what is to stop him.......so holding him at gunpoint it is.

At least, that's how I break it down. But like I said, if I tried to hold him, and he cut and run, I'm not going to back-shoot him over something that I've already recovered.

The lawyer in me wants to start saying but but, BUT the pragmaitst in me can agree with your points.
Leaving out the "in my residence" side I'd not thought about it. Good scenario to think about.

healthinsp wrote:If necessary...

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. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... bwG2z.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She was stealing packages off his front porch. Yes, she was trespassing. Please, don't take this like I am defending her.
I guess I am hung up on "reasonably believes that..." I wonder if, with a more liberal PD, his actions wouldn't have been questioned as to how could he have "reasonably believed" he couldn't recover his property in any other way.

He did not use deadly force:

PC §9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified
when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a
threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or
otherwise, as long as the actor’s purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly
force.

The "to wits and the whereas'" notwithstanding, shooting someone is sure to get the shooter a lot of attention.

) 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.

In 9:41 it says you can go after your property and us force to recover. I start after the miscreantRunjning and he sees I am going to catch him he turns with a stick or creow bar he just went over the line deadly force is now on the table

any force less than deadly would expose me to death or serious bodily injury ..

I do myn best at interpreting the law to my students over the las t19 years that shooting a perp with your goods only requires deadly force when force is not enough for your protection. But all property can be protec6ed or recoverd by another means and you dont know if the cops will catch him 3 blocks away.

I will never shoot to protect property except in cicumstance above if i feel the need to GO AFTER THE PROPERTY

and the resistance is great. Lots of cowboys think you can shhot to protecy property and it is not correct and not in the law if you read it properly.. after eac spot that you think you can use dealy force theher is a colon and the word or or and and then a new paragraph.. you do not have the complete law till you reach the period. and PC 9:43 begin

I have put the very same thing on here before and got blasted by a couple of insrtructors.. They can do it their way.
but folks can get in serious trouble following som of the instructor advice here Read the Law

By thye by Annoyed man is correxct

o b juan wrote:By thye by Annoyed man is correxct

Would you please talk to my wife?

o b juan wrote: But all property can be protected or recovered by another means and you dint know if the cops will catch him 3 blocks away.

I will never shoot to protect property except in circumstance above if i feel the need to GO AFTER THE PROPERTY

and the resistance is great. Lots of cowboys think you can shoot to protect property and it is not correct and not in the law if you read it properly.. after eac spot that you think you can use dealy force theher is a colon and the word or or and and then a new paragraph.. you do not have the complete law till you reach the period. and PC 9:43 begin

Read the Law

Wrong. Not all property can be recoverd by other means. Insurance is not recovery of property. Family heirlooms may not be replaceable. So, you CAN LEGALLY use deadly force to protect property if the guidelines in the law are met. here is 9.42:

§ 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.

Take a look at my red sections of 9.42. If I reasonably believe the property taken by theft during the nighttime cannot be recovered by any other means, then I am covered by the statute.

Also, if you take the blue section, maybe the person stole a loaded firearm from me and I believe he is heading to rob or murder someone, then I can legally use deadly force to recover that firearm to keep another person from being exposed to the substantial risk of death or serious injury.

Now, WILL I do that? It depends. Most property is NOT worth using deadly force to recover. However, there may be a circumstance where I would do that and there is a legal justification to cover that use of deadly force to recover that property.

You are improperly teaching the law.

Pawpaw wrote:He did not use deadly force:

PC §9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified
when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a
threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or
otherwise, as long as the actor’s purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly
force.

DING! DING! DING!
We have a winner.

tacticool wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:He did not use deadly force:

PC §9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified
when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a
threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or
otherwise, as long as the actor’s purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly
force.

DING! DING! DING!
We have a winner.