Deadly Force in Texas

[Dacoda]

I hate trying to understand "code". Correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost looks as if a person is running away with my property, I have the legal right to use deadly force. Not that I plan on it, but is this true?


PC §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.
PC §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.

 

[Ira Aten]

This might be the new bill, as I don't see anything in this section regarding "after dark".

Is this a proposed bill from the new "stand your ground" legislation?

 

[Steve in PA]

No, it is not true. When reading the law make sure you pay attention to the "or" as well as "and" parts, as the sections they refer to must be in place.

(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.

You are not automatically allowed to use deadly force.

 

[mec]

Right. There is always the proviso that lesser force would not suffice or that the property could not be recovered by other means. You have to convince a jury that you couldn't have just called the police to go and get your property back.

Right at the beginning of chapter nine is some language about justifying force. Something like this : Necesssity - the actor is justified if the harm the actor seeks to prevent outweighs the severity of his remedy by "ordinary standards of reasonableness." (sic). Mowing down a kid running off with your yard jockey might not meet the test.

Most of the protection of property language pretty much confines use of deadly force to crimes that have a high potential of harming or killing persons - Like arson or robbery. While the use of deadly force is not allow for theft or malicious mischief during the day time, the statute does specifically authorize it "in the night time" because it is more difficult to determine what kind of threat exists when you cannot see well.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

maybe

case law in texas absolved a nan who shot and killed an auto reposessor in the back as he leeft with the mans car

 

[FreedomKommando]

case law in texas absolved a nan who shot and killed an ...

The grand jury no-billed the shooter.

 

[TX1911fan]

I seem to recall a case in Austin where a guy and his girlfriend were mugged on the street. After the guy gave up his money, he ran to his car, got his gun, chased the mugger down and shot him. He went to trial and won. Anyone know this case? It was just in the last several years.

 

[Dacoda]

ok here we go, hypothetical situation.

so, you get robbed in texas, and you're carrying your ccw, you hand the man your wallet containing ID, credit cards, ATM card, social security card etc...

the robber turns around and runs, you draw and fire. would that be considered justified for "fear" of being an identity theft victim? is that sort of what this is saying?

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means; or

granted the second part reads "would expose the actor to death or serious bodily injury", but identity theft is a pretty serious thing nowadays, no?

 

[Drizzt]

I seem to recall a case in Austin where a guy and his girlfriend were mugged on the street. After the guy gave up his money, he ran to his car, got his gun, chased the mugger down and shot him. He went to trial and won. Anyone know this case? It was just in the last several years.

If it's the same one I remember, the couple were at the woman's apt downtown, when they heard someone breaking into the man's truck. The man had a CHL and was carrying. He went down to confront the crook while his GF was on the phone with 911. The crook started walking away, but he had been in the glove compartment, so the man believed that the crook had his name and address, so when he started throwing gang signs and threatening him, the man believed him. He starting following the crook, so that the police would be able to find him when (if) they arrived. The crook made a move towards his waistband while spinning back around to face the man, so he was shot. This was in 98, I believe. DA Ronnie Earle, the Defender Of The People, tried to press charges, but was unsuccessful.

 

[bouis]

The beauty of "at night" means you can just about always say, at the minimum, that you couldn't see whether the bad guy was armed or not, and therefore you would be exposing yourself to more danger if you used anything but deadly force.

I wonder what "recovered" means -- if, for example, your car is being stolen, but you have insurance, does that constitute another means?

 

[MechAg94]

I have heard someone on here say that insurance does factor in. I have no idea of the case law though.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If you shoot somebody under that particular section of the penal code, you had better really want that property. Better yet, wander on down to your local criminal defense attorney and ask him what his flat fee would be to defend you just through the grand jury investigation of such a shooting. At least that way you'll know whether you will be spending $10,000 to protect your $40 Wal-Mart hibachi before you make that decision.