Defending your property?
- Thread starter mpthole
- Start date
- Status
Matthew Courtney
Member
I interpret it to mean that you can threaten deadly force or use less than lethal weapons to protect property, but you cannot use lethal force to so do.
griz
Member
What he said. I think they mean you can forcefuly detain or catch them, but not intentionally injure them. In other words you could grab them but not whack them with a softball bat.
TheBluesMan
Senior Member
You can use lethal force if you reasonably believe that such force is necessary to save your own life; just not to save your property.
mattd
Member
I agree with the last 3 also. Any 4ths?
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
This has been a trend for years. America used to be about life/property/liberty. Is not your property purchased with part of your life? You worked for, or still work to pay for, your property. The "free-thinkers" have decided that your property is not valuable. It can be replaced: No one should use deadly force to protect it. Is this a new rule of civilized society?
We must pay for the property. We must pay for insurance in case of theft. Then if the property is stolen, we let the criminal go and we make a police report. Protect and serve, right? The insurance pays for the lost property (most, anyway), we get our property back (sort of), and the criminal is probably never caught. Everybody is a winner. Oh, and the LEO gets a coffe break.
Except for the victim, of course. The victim has to spend time filing reports, talking to police, making claims, waiting for the claim to be paid, taking time to locate and purchase the replacement property, etc....And for all that, the victim gets to pay higher insurance.
If we could use lethal force to defend our property, then there would be less theft
We must pay for the property. We must pay for insurance in case of theft. Then if the property is stolen, we let the criminal go and we make a police report. Protect and serve, right? The insurance pays for the lost property (most, anyway), we get our property back (sort of), and the criminal is probably never caught. Everybody is a winner. Oh, and the LEO gets a coffe break.
Except for the victim, of course. The victim has to spend time filing reports, talking to police, making claims, waiting for the claim to be paid, taking time to locate and purchase the replacement property, etc....And for all that, the victim gets to pay higher insurance.
If we could use lethal force to defend our property, then there would be less theft
Thanks all for the replies and clearing it up. 
... not doing the rolleyes at y'all - but about the crazy laws. I bought a house this summer and just wanted to check into a few laws. Sometimes I think I'd be better off in Texas.
... not doing the rolleyes at y'all - but about the crazy laws. I bought a house this summer and just wanted to check into a few laws. Sometimes I think I'd be better off in Texas. Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I read it that you can't begin at the deadly force level. If the Bad Guy escalates the deal into a deadly threat after one's attempts at ending the theft, that's some other part of the law...
I don't read the cited portion to mean you can't trip the guy and sit on him while the cops are on the way to collect him.
Art
I don't read the cited portion to mean you can't trip the guy and sit on him while the cops are on the way to collect him.
Art
mattd
Member
7.62 if everyone shot anyone waking through peoples yards, I'd be shot about 1,000 times. I would never shoot someone for being in my yard or stealing a bike or a car, they are just things that can be replaced. You don't own any land anyway, the government does, you just pay rent. The way I read it is you can pull a gun on someone for being in your yard and if he comes after you, you can shoot him or would you rather just shoot and ask questions later.
Balog
Member
mattd: Sigh.
Can you replace the time it took to acquire them? By stealing or destroying your property, they are taking a part of your life. That said, if you want to be violated and not resist, feel free. Just don't force me to abide by your moral code.
How nice to see that the Communist Party is still alive and well.
Why do you keep trying to equate theft or destruction of property with trespassing? It's intellectually dishonest.
Edit: typo
He never said anything about shooting trespassers.
Can you replace the time it took to acquire them? By stealing or destroying your property, they are taking a part of your life. That said, if you want to be violated and not resist, feel free. Just don't force me to abide by your moral code.
How nice to see that the Communist Party is still alive and well.
Why do you keep trying to equate theft or destruction of property with trespassing? It's intellectually dishonest.
Edit: typo
mattd
Member
Sorry, don't know where I got it from, I was thinking of land as property.
I didn't write the law, nor do I work for the government.
Yea but after the civil suit and lawyer fees how much it cost in the end.
I didn't write the law, nor do I work for the government.
Yea but after the civil suit and lawyer fees how much it cost in the end.
Balog
Member
mattd wrote:
We were discussing theft or destruction of property, not non-malicious trespass. You kept putting words into our mouths. Dishonest. Although perhaps you really can't see the difference between walking on someone's front lawn and stealing their car.
I wasn't accusing you of those things. In this argument you were proposing the moral righteousness of refusing to resist being violated. Let's say an anti who didn't write the law or work for the government came on this board and advocated banning firearms because he "didn't think they were appropriate." If I said "Don't force me to abide by your choices" would you say he wasn't trying to force anything on me because he didn't have the power to do so?
We were talking about the way things should be, not the way they are. We were complaining about the negative consequences of defending your property, so saying "Defending your property has negative consequences" is both redundant and stupid.
We were discussing theft or destruction of property, not non-malicious trespass. You kept putting words into our mouths. Dishonest. Although perhaps you really can't see the difference between walking on someone's front lawn and stealing their car.
I wasn't accusing you of those things. In this argument you were proposing the moral righteousness of refusing to resist being violated. Let's say an anti who didn't write the law or work for the government came on this board and advocated banning firearms because he "didn't think they were appropriate." If I said "Don't force me to abide by your choices" would you say he wasn't trying to force anything on me because he didn't have the power to do so?
We were talking about the way things should be, not the way they are. We were complaining about the negative consequences of defending your property, so saying "Defending your property has negative consequences" is both redundant and stupid.
BHPshooter
Member
LOL!
I was thinking the exact same thing. I have to agree fully with 7.62. It's like he read my aching brain.
If there were immediate, physically painful repercussions to stealing my only car, my DVD player, or my silverware, I'm not only willing to bet -- I know that crime would drop drastically.
And illegal or not, if someone tries to steal my only form of transportation, or my only [fill in the blank], I'm going to shoot them, illegal or not.
[now cue the argument that people only break into houses when they're on drugs, which are unequivocally evil. After all, these people were strapped to a table while people from black, silent helicopters administered the drugs. The drug users are the victims, after all.
]*sigh*
Wes
mattd
Member
I belive the first question asked about the current law. Are you saying defending your property with lethal force doesn't have negative effects? Maybe in a perfect world, but in a perfect world crime wouldn't happen.
Once again, Sorry, don't know where I got it from, I was thinking of land as property. I'm dyslexic so I see some things in different ways at first.
No need to talk like that.
Hkmp5sd
Member
I interpret it to mean you can use or threaten the use of force, other than deadly force, to stop someone from damaging or stealing your property.
Excluding the fact you would really love to blast someone trying to burglarize your property, even in states that may allow that in some circumstances, wouldn't you be better off to scare the BG away instead of shooting him? The emotional/civil/criminal/financial hassles encountered after using deadly force are far worse than just being PO'd and chasing the BG away.
Another thing to consider when contemplating the use of force to protect property, one which many homeowners/CCWs never think about, is you just might lose the encounter.
Obviously, if your life is in danger, deadly force is a valid, possibly only, option. But is it worth putting your life in danger to protect your $60 DVD player?
Matthew Courtney
Member
Sure it would be better to scare the Bg off, if that could be accomplished with less risk to the well being of the resident/property owner than just shooting them.
Tactically, exposing yourself to them in an attempt to scare them off is very risky. If they are armed, or worse, if they have an accomplice that you are not aware of, you are in grave danger once you alert them to your presence. Better justifification laws allow you to use deadly force not only when actually in grave danger, but in reasonable attempts to avoid grave danger without fleeing from any place that you have a right to be.
The best justification laws allow one to avoid situations of grave danger by shooting felons who reasonably appear likely to be about to create it, and at the same time avoid civil liability exposure while so doing.
Would I shoot someone over $60? No way! But if they are attempting to make entry of my house uninvited, how can I know whether thay want to take my stereo or my children? If they are in my truck, how can I know whether they are stealing the CD player or trying to take the truck itself and deprive me of the transportation I need to get to work and feed my family?
I can't. In such situations it is be reasonable and prudent to act as if they are trying to hurt you. They are certainly acting with a total disregard for there own personal safety and it would be negligent carelessness to assume that they are unarmed and do not have an accomplice, or to believe that they give a flip about your safety ar the safety of your family.
Problems 2 and 3 won't matter if you don't solve problem #1.
Tactically, exposing yourself to them in an attempt to scare them off is very risky. If they are armed, or worse, if they have an accomplice that you are not aware of, you are in grave danger once you alert them to your presence. Better justifification laws allow you to use deadly force not only when actually in grave danger, but in reasonable attempts to avoid grave danger without fleeing from any place that you have a right to be.
The best justification laws allow one to avoid situations of grave danger by shooting felons who reasonably appear likely to be about to create it, and at the same time avoid civil liability exposure while so doing.
Would I shoot someone over $60? No way! But if they are attempting to make entry of my house uninvited, how can I know whether thay want to take my stereo or my children? If they are in my truck, how can I know whether they are stealing the CD player or trying to take the truck itself and deprive me of the transportation I need to get to work and feed my family?
I can't. In such situations it is be reasonable and prudent to act as if they are trying to hurt you. They are certainly acting with a total disregard for there own personal safety and it would be negligent carelessness to assume that they are unarmed and do not have an accomplice, or to believe that they give a flip about your safety ar the safety of your family.
Problems 2 and 3 won't matter if you don't solve problem #1.
Last edited:
Ahhh Texas, it's a whole other country...
Protecting Property in the Republic of Texas, from the Texas law concerning concealed handguns and use of deadly force, off of the DPS CHL website:
Subch. D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
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:
TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS PC §9.51. 47
(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.
PC §9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect
land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances
as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be
justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to
protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes
attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the
tangible
movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or
property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property;
or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or
deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides
with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
PC §9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justification
afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device
to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to
create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as
the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.
Protecting Property in the Republic of Texas, from the Texas law concerning concealed handguns and use of deadly force, off of the DPS CHL website:
Subch. D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
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:
TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS PC §9.51. 47
(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.
PC §9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect
land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances
as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be
justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to
protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes
attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the
tangible
movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or
property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property;
or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or
deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides
with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
PC §9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justification
afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device
to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to
create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as
the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.
gilles3297
Member
Wow!
The more I read about Texas the better I like it. If it only wern't so darn hot down there.
The more I read about Texas the better I like it. If it only wern't so darn hot down there.
Hkmp5sd
Member
No what I mean. If you find someone in your house, you obviously consider them a threat and act appropriately. If you fear for youself or your family, use deadly force. However, if you wake up and see some guy climbing out the window with your DVD player, shoot him too? You hear someone in your house, get your gun and go looking or hit the panic button on the alarm system and send him running? You pull up in the driveway and notice signs of entry. Draw your CCW and investigate or call the LEOs and let them check it out first?
Confronting a possible BG with a gun isn't always the firstest/bestest way to handle every situation.
clubsoda22
member
If it's a dark room "I thought he had a weapon" should be enough.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
No one is suggesting that we violate common sense. If the threat is receding (i.e. climbing out the window with a DVD player), then it makes no sense to shoot the guy.
Remember, the two things you need to "remember"
"I feared for my life"
"I was acting in self-defence"
Remember, the two things you need to "remember"
"I feared for my life"
"I was acting in self-defence"
TheOtherOne
Member
....or my only way to water the lawn?
If I look out the window and see some punk neighborhood kids hauling off my garden hose, I'm going to open the door and yell at them that they better hurry it up because the cops are on the way. Of course, it would be funner to open the door with a shotgun and shoot it in the air to really get them moving but that would get me in much more trouble then the theifs would be in.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
If y'all take a closer look at the original post, I am sure you will notice that this law does NOT pertain to personal property, but retail property. Retail property may be personal in family business, but for the most part, the law does not appear to pertain to anything such as normal home property.
Basically, it says you can use force to stop a shoplifter type person. You apparently don't get the option of shooting the runner in the back as he attempts to flee with the retail items.
What many folks will fail to understand is that at the time in which a person commits a robbery where that person uses the threat of physical harm, as with a weapon, the person behind the counter has every right to defend him/herself against the threat. At that point, it is of no consequence that the bad guy was there to rob property from the store. The plan of robbery is simply the reasoning for why the robber came to the store.
Basically, it says you can use force to stop a shoplifter type person. You apparently don't get the option of shooting the runner in the back as he attempts to flee with the retail items.
What many folks will fail to understand is that at the time in which a person commits a robbery where that person uses the threat of physical harm, as with a weapon, the person behind the counter has every right to defend him/herself against the threat. At that point, it is of no consequence that the bad guy was there to rob property from the store. The plan of robbery is simply the reasoning for why the robber came to the store.
It's almost a cliche now, but criminals' rights in this country have gotten to the point where they are ridiculous. I also would not kill someone over a $60 DVD player if I knew that was all the person was after. However as far as I'm concerned if someone invades your property in an unlawful way (I don't mean harmless tresspassing) then is shot or otherwise injured then they had it coming. After all, the person made a conscious decision to violate your rights -- they should have to suffer the consequences of the bad choice they made. This is a principle that has largely gone by the wayside in the U.S. Even worse, there have been many cases where criminals have brought successful civil suits against people whose property they have invaded for purposes of theft after they were injured during the robbery -- even when the victims were not at home! Bad guy breaks in, slips and falls or is otherwise accidentally harmed, and then sues the homeowner. It is just unbelievable, but it is happening.
Texas has it right. You don't want to get shot? Stay the hell out of my house unless you are invited in. Here in Ohio, that sounds like radical thinking. ... sigh...
Texas has it right. You don't want to get shot? Stay the hell out of my house unless you are invited in. Here in Ohio, that sounds like radical thinking. ... sigh...
- Status
