interesting incident in houston

Sounds like the "armed neighbor" needs some marksmanship lessons.

Shooting someone could be a good way to avoid getting run over.
Since they also stole a rifle and were driveing towards the neighbor I'd say justified (but sloppy) shooting.

Where'd those five rounds go ?

For some, the "Castle Doctrine" is held sacred though the question is, do these "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine" extend to stolen merchandise and more importantly the well meaning actions of an armed neighbor? Is it something which must be judged on a case by case basis? An armed neighbor backing up an 83 YO person will more than likely be seen favorably. As mentioned, what we say in do in a stress situation has a very bad habit of coming back to haunt us especially these days when many have phones capable of audio/video.

Remember that Texas has a certain set of laws covering protection of property (at night) which differ completely from those in any other state.

The neighbor might indeed get a "good shoot" determination out of this, even though it would (probably) not be so in any other place.

For some, the "Castle Doctrine" is held sacred though the question is, do these "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine" extend to stolen merchandise and more importantly the well meaning actions of an armed neighbor?

Click to expand...

Neither "Castle Doctrine" nor "Stand Your Ground" laws would apply to this case. Once an intruder is leaving there is rarely any lawful case for using deadly force to stop him. (As well as being a horrid tactical choice.)

Texas is a little different from other places as they have a law that, on its face, gives cover to someone using force to stop certain property thefts at night.

We shall see.

I didn't know that about texas, but I must admit, I think it's a good idea.

I didn't know that about texas, but I must admit, I think it's a good idea.

Click to expand...

What is? Shooting at fleeing thieves?

No...that's not a good idea.

Just for clarity, here's a quote from a THR member regarding the actual TX statute:

ClickClickD'Oh said:

§ 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.

So yes, you can use lethal force to prevent the escape of a person who has committed a burglary

And now to put on my Texas CHL/NRA/Private Security instructor hat... Don't ever try using that justification. Seriously, don't. In fact, just pretend that whole section of the law doesn't exist. Section (3)(A) pretty much kills any chance of using that defense successfully if you have homeowners insurance.

Click to expand...

In Texas you need permission to defend a third party's property but this situation also includes a threat to life.

Every situation has its own details. YMMV.

Sam1911 said:

What is? Shooting at fleeing thieves?

No...that's not a good idea.

Click to expand...

not exactly where I was going, more on the protection pf property.

people randomly shooting is never a good idea. that's called a drive by.

"So yes, you can use lethal force to prevent the escape of a person who has committed a burglary."

Police do it after a command to stop. Is that somehow different?

Police do it after a command to stop. Is that somehow different?

Click to expand...

Well, no. Generally, police do NOT shoot someone simply for failing to follow an order to stop, and if they DO they have to have a REALLY clear and justifiable reason for that act, subject to the authorities they are granted as a law enforcement officer in their state.

And police officers are indemnified by their departments for such acts as long as they are operating exactly under department policy.


As a private citizen, you NEVER have the right to shoot someone for failing to do anything at all just because you told them to. (With the exception of committing direct physical violence upon you or others in that very instant.)

The law in Texas is very unusual to the point of being unique among the states, in that under certain circumstances you might be able to sustain a justification for using lethal force to protect property, and that law is MUCH more limited than anyone -- especially Texans -- believe it to be.

SAM said:

What is? Shooting at fleeing thieves?

No...that's not a good idea.

Click to expand...

Well they weren't just fleeing. They attempted to run the shooter over BEFORE he fired. I think he gets off on self defense.

taliv ........And armed neighbor comes and attempts to hold them until police arrive. The burglars attempt to run him over.

.....Seems kinda sketchy justification for shooting.

Click to expand...

Seriously?

The reporting (which sure isn't much to go on) says, "He told the suspects to stay put until deputies arrived. Instead they nearly ran him over."

That doesn't say they were trying to run him over, or that they were credibly attempting to kill him. "Nearly ran me over!" is the sort of thing one would have to PROVE in court when establishing your affirmative defense of self-defense. If you could prove that they were exercising the intent to drive over you, yes you could base a self-defense claim on that point.

If "nearly ran me over" is actually a bit of a stretch and the truth is closer to, "They got in the car and sped off and I was running up to them and nearly got in the way..." then no, you probably don't want to claim self-defense based on that.


That is, if anyone bothers to press charges. What the law says, and how the law could be applied, and what the responding officers think and report, and what the local prosecutor feels s/he can get a conviction on all may be very different things.

It's really hard to glean much useful info from the news reporting on any situations like this, and dangerous to structure your own ideas of lawful self-defense based off of them.


And this sort of thing...

The neighbor who shot at them says if they ever come back to this neighborhood, they won't be leaving with their lives.

Click to expand...

...I hope we don't have to explain why that kind of statement is just sheer stupidity.

Sam1911 said:

The law in Texas is very unusual to the point of being unique among the states, in that under certain circumstances you might be able to sustain a justification for using lethal force to protect property, and that law is MUCH more limited than anyone -- especially Texans -- believe it to be.

Click to expand...

yes Texas law is different. I'm not sure what you mean about limited understanding Like many natives, I Have lived here almost 60 years and have seen many no bills plus friends who have had to use LF at night.

I would never recommend LF in defense of a 3rd party (unless you are absolutely sure of the circumstances) or especially their property. There are too many reasons it is not worth it.

The history of this part of the penal code goes back to when property and the loss of that property could literally mean life or death for the owner.

I didn't say limited understanding. I said the scope of the law is much more limited than folks tend to believe.

For example, it only applies AT NIGHT. Second, it only applies if the property cannot be "recovered" by any other means. As I quoted, anyone with homeowner's insurance can't literally claim that for almost any common possessions.

Neither of those points tend to be brought up by the occasional folks we meet who'll crow, "Here in Texas we can 'choot 'em if we catch'em stealin' our TV!"





Now, as I said before,

What the law says, and how the law could be applied, and what the responding officers think and report, and what the local prosecutor feels s/he can get a conviction on all may be very different things.

Click to expand...

...so your experience with seeing people not charged in questionable cases isn't surprising. Some prosecutors just won't bother to press charges when they think the case will be tough to win and some won't risk it where it might prove politically unpopular.

The history of this part of the penal code goes back to when property and the loss of that property could literally mean life or death for the owner.

Click to expand...

Which isn't the case any more.

However, as you point out, even the basis of this is (appears to be) a matter of preserving life. The laws of almost all of our states allow for the use of lethal force by a citizen -- but only when it is necessary to IMMEDIATELY stop the imminent violent death of one's self or another, or a few other specific crimes which risk death or other grave bodily harm. Preservation of property has never been a lawful justification for a citizen causing the death of another human being, in any of the western legal tradition that our laws arise from. So Texas, unique among the States, still has on it's books a law that recognizes that a citizen might have to use lethal force to protect some element of property or face certain death. And the caveats to that law still preclude doing so unless there's no other recourse to recover that property and, by extension, continue to survive. The constructs of modern society and law (law enforcement, insurance, etc.) have made such recourses so ubiquitous (as ClickClickD'Oh had pointed out -- such as homeowner's insurance) that there are now exceptionally few literal justifications under this code.

Sam1911 said:

I didn't say limited understanding.

Which isn't the case any more.

Click to expand...

agreed. that's why its not worth it IMO. Like the contradiction in signage some put on their vehicles,

"nothing in this truck is worth your life!"

Click to expand...

Their intent is to say they will use lethal force to protect their property but what the signs says is they know their property is not worth a human life.

An argument about circumstance and "whatifs" can go on forever but what is important is to KNOW that LF should be a last resort. Sometimes you don't get a choice as the bad guy does not give you one...

MANY people here know the penal code as it is required knowledge to obtain a permit.

MANY people here know the penal code as it is required knowledge to obtain a permit.

Click to expand...

And the quote I gave regarding that bit of the code was given by a Texas CHL instructor.

And now to put on my Texas CHL/NRA/Private Security instructor hat... Don't ever try using that justification. Seriously, don't. In fact, just pretend that whole section of the law doesn't exist. Section (3)(A) pretty much kills any chance of using that defense successfully if you have homeowners insurance.

Click to expand...

To bad his aim wasn't better, then we might have two less scum bags to deal with. Who really cares if a criminals civil rights are violated? I don't, but of course a citizen who tries to stop the worthless scum is the bad guy. Give me a break.

... a citizen who tries to stop the worthless scum is the bad guy. Give me a break.

Click to expand...

Where'd those five rounds go ?

Click to expand...

Anyone who shoots a firearm at another person and/or in a public place has to both have a lawfully viable justification for doing so, and be responsible for where those bullets stop. Shooting at fleeing criminals might make folks feel better, but many "two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right" choices do.

Nobody else can see the "good guy's" halo and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If those bullets stopped in my house, my dog, or my kid, he wouldn't be the good guy any more.