TX: Shooting in Defense of Property

[Heysoos]

Early morning 3:00AM July 5th, I'm sleeping soundly after the fireworks died down and am awoken by loud metal on metal screeching and banging. The windows in my apartment complex are quite thin and it's very easy to hear what's going on outside, and I just happened to park my truck right outside my bedroom window that night. Waking up, I realized I was hearing something out of place this late at night, so I went to the blinds, peered out, and saw two men using a crowbar to pry their way into the toolbox mounted on my truck(you know, it's the metal kind that sits on top of the bed walls). My first thought is rage, so I start for my gun, get about two steps and remember reading all these posts on the High Road about how it's better to be a good witness in situations like this. So instead of picking up the pistol, I run to the phone and managed a good description of the men and their car while on the phone with 911. It just about ripped my heart out watching these scum root through my stuff while I was on the phone, but the description I gave had the cops on them within 5 minutes, and my stuff ($300 worth of tools) back within an hour and a half. My toolbox on the other hand is a wreck, but I guess I might get some compensation back when a conviction comes.

I have a question relating to the Texas law about using lethal force to protect property. I am glad I didn't take that route(for obvious reasons), but am actually wondering if it would apply in this situation because of section 3 of this law:

9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
if
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.

Texas Defense of Property Law

If I live a half mile from a police station, does this apply?

I know it’s a question for an attorney, but I’d just like to get some opinions.

 

[dolanp]

It's not really even a question for an attorney, it's a question for a jury.

You might have been able to scare them off so you didn't run any risk of not getting your stuff back, but obviously that would increase the risk to your person. I'm not sure I could have stood by watching myself, but you did well and it all turned out ok.

 

[Jeeper]

Do we always need to do what we legaly can? If you went out there and confronted them and something happened where you were justified in using deadly force, what are the consequences? You end up oweing a lot of money to a few lawyers to defend you in criminal and civil cases. Texas might not indite you but civil is defeinately likely. Is it really worth it for a few bucks in tools that hopefully you carry insurance on.

Would you be justified....Yes. The situation you mentioned is likely to give you enough justification to threaten deadily force and potentially to use it. They were definitaly stealing and causing criminal damage and it was at night. If there was no other means to get the property back, you would be justified. Living close to a police station is a hit against you if they actually respond. Of course there are also other posssibilities like other robbers out of sight that might turn the tables on you.

I would likely have confronted them from a very safe and defendable position. Possibly yelling at them through a window or such. I have confronted people on my property more than once with a gun. one was trying to break into my car in the driveway, another was trying to break into my back door. It really depends on the situation.

Thinking of the High Road in the middle of a crime is sort of funny though

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Let's say it does apply and you could justifiably shoot them. You will still be indicted and it will be up to a grand jury to no bill you should the prosecutor decide to bring charges.

Even if the prosecutor gives you a free ride, you will still get sued in civil court by their family (or the two people in question if they survive).

You are looking at 5-digit legal costs at a minimum. So all in all, I'd say you made the right decision from a tactics standpoint. Police got thieves and you got your property back. While they might have done a good deal of damage, you still got out of the deal much cheaper than any firearm resolution would have left you.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I have a question relating to the Texas law about using lethal force to protect property. I am glad I didn't take that route(for obvious reasons)...

Let me play devil's advocate a moment, eh? By letting the parasites live, you've enabled them to commit more such crimes as soon as they've been put on probation or sent to jail for a few weeks and turned loose on parole.

 

[JohnKSa]

You did well.

 

[javafiend]

Let's say it does apply and you could justifiably shoot them. You will still be indicted

Indicted? My friend, this is *Texas.* A couple of skels break into your truck in the middle of the night at night and you waste 'em? The police will slap you on the back and the DA will file it away under DSAF (Did Society A Favor). Oh sure, they might run it past the grand jury where'd you better say the right things ("My intent was to stop them, not kill them"), but after they examine the scene and discover that you have a clean record while the bad guys have rap sheets, then game over and you win.

Read this.

 

[CentralTexas]

I'm waiting for the

"You would shoot someone over property????" comments.
Yup. it would cause a reduction in crime in your screwball state if you started too!
You did the smart thing as there may have been an unseen shooter to one side, numerous things may have gone wrong etc. BUT if you had confronted them that would have been ok as well, you will never know how that may have played out. You must be 100% sure that you won't hesitate to shoot if they get within that magic 21FT with that crowbar they were using to steal stuff with or you could be the dead man.
CT

 

[Sindawe]

IMHO, you took the prudent course of action, and fortune smiled on you so that it turned out in YOUR favor this time. In a sane world, the situation as described by javafiend would be par for the course across the land. But alas....

 

[Preacherman]

I think you did exactly the right thing under the circumstances as described. You don't have to live with yourself in the aftermath of killing someone (and, no matter how justified, this will haunt you. How do I know this, you ask? Trust me. I know this. ).

If, on the other hand, the BG's had been trying to break into your house, that's a whole different ball game, and a response using lethal force is much easier to justify at the time, and sustain in court if necessary.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

i think you did the right thing.

i wonder how many of the guys who advised you that you should have shot the suspects, have actually shot people or at least confronted them with a firearm?

it is very easy to monday morning quarterback someone on the internet and say "you should have shot someone". it is quite another thing to have actually been in the situation yourself and to have actually have followed through with your own advice.

i was a former police officer, i have pointed the business end of my pistol at someone more than once. it is very serious business to be doing that and the internet allows people to conveniently state the opinion without ever having themselves been in the situation.

i'll say that i have never been burglarized and been a victim, and to that there is a certain emotional response watching some guys vandalize and steal your stuff.

but i have pointed my gun at someone with the full intent to use it if need be, and it is a very large responsibility. pulling the trigger to simply take someone's life over your tools, stereo, or other personal property is legal under the circumstances you described under the Texas Penal Code, however, as Bartholomew stated, there lots of other things you have to deal with, like lawsuits, emotional side-effects (when my buddy shot and killed a bad guy on his 3rd month on the job as a cop in DFW, Texas back in 1995 - a suicide by cop mind you, the man pointed a Mini-14 at the cops so they'd kill him. he couldn't eat, sleep, or even poop for 3 days straight because he was all messed up psychologically for taking someone's life even though it was 100% justified. he is now a homicide detective.), and the like.

don't let someone tell you that you should have shot the guys over "GP" - general principle. for those guys who offered up that advice, how many times have you challenged someone at gunpoint (for REAL, not scenario training) and had to decide whether or not to pull the trigger?

just my two cents. i think you did the right thing.

 

[beerslurpy]

You can be sued as the result of a justifiable shooting? I know that isnt the case in FL, I assumed TX was ahead of us on that count...

 

[Vernal45]

I have a problem with folks that steal. A big problem, sooner or later, people that steal will get bolder, and someone innocent will get hurt. You did good, you did what YOU thought was right and what YOU could live with. Thats all that matters, what anyone one else thinks, or exclaims what they would do, is irrelevant.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

You can be sued as the result of a justifiable shooting?

of course you can. you can also be sued if it goes sideways in any sense.

how about if this THR member engaged the two BG's with his pistol and it turned out they were armed as well? so a gun battle ensues. stray rounds from someone's gun, be it the suspects' or the victim's, end up hitting surrounding vehicles and other occupied dwellings.

im sure an attorney can file suit on the victim for escalating a burglary of a motor vehicle (property crime) into a shootout (violent crime). all a jury in a civil trial needs is to believe the victim in this case was 51% liable for civil claim and they can find him civilly culpable.

so, how about a few insurance companies for the damaged vehicles (due to bullets) sue our victim? then a nearby resident or two does as well because a stray round entered one of their homes?

an attorney can say that our victim escalated the event without reason. the police station is 5 minutes away and the cops were on the way when he decided to engage them with a gun.

also, tactically speaking, is it a good thing to be having a gun in your hand when the cops arrive anyway at a crime in progress? who is the good guy and who is the bad guy? im not sure our victim wouldn't have added to the confusion or perhaps even be accidentally shot by the responding police.

 

[HighVelocity]

I think you did exactly the right thing. It's dark, you see your truck getting broken into but what you cannot see is if there are any other BG's besides the ones actually breaking into your toolbox. There could have been someone waiting for you to come out.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Indicted? My friend, this is *Texas.* A couple of skels break into your truck in the middle of the night at night and you waste 'em? The police will slap you on the back and the DA will file it away under DSAF (Did Society A Favor). Oh sure, they might run it past the grand jury where'd you better say the right things ("My intent was to stop them, not kill them"), but after they examine the scene and discover that you have a clean record while the bad guys have rap sheets, then game over and you win.

javafiend, this kind of advice borders on dangerous. For the record, at the time I received my initial Texas CHL license in 1998, there had been 52 shootings involving CHL holders. Of those 52 shootings, 51 had been no-billed by the grand jury and there were 52 civil suits.

The legal costs of these CHL holders to defend themselves from legally justfiable shootings ranged from $10,000 to $55,000. If you really believe what you wrote will be the likely outcome of using deadly force in Texas, I would encourage you to do some research of actual cases and outcomes involving defensive shootings that were later no-billed by the grand jury.

I think you are going to find that the real world story of how that plays out is significantly different from what you've implied in your post.

 

[K-Romulus]

you did the right thing

Look at the outcome:

1) the suspects are in the hands of the criminal justice system
2) you got your property returned
3) you are alive to post what happened

Look at the actual cost to you to get that outcome:

1) watching your tool box get smashed
2) second guessing your initial reaction upon informed reflection

vs.

Alternative possible cost(s) and outcomes:

1) possible death/injury during a shootout with perps
2) possible death/injury from ambush by hidden perp #3
3) bail money after your arrest
4) mental issues from surviving a shootout
5) criminal defense attorney fees
6) harassment by media types (i.e., "vigilante shoots victims")
7) mental issues from #6
8) civil suit defense attorney fees
9) Pepto-Bismol expenses incurred during countdown to civil suit and/or pending criminal trial/grand jury hearing
10) "Death warrant" put out on you by the "acquaintances" of the perps you shot

I would take the lowest cost way out of things. I view every potential criminal incident as a "lawsuit": It's here, and it's not going away, so should you gamble and go to "trial" (and maybe lose), or would it be "cheaper" and safer to just settle things (and have a definite outcome)?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

You can be sued as the result of a justifiable shooting? I know that isnt the case in FL, I assumed TX was ahead of us on that count...

You are incorrect ... you most certainly can be sued as a result of a justifiable shooting in Florida.

The term "sued" (as opposed to "charged" or "prosecuted") indicates civil court. A lawsuit by the crook or his/her relatives. One of the primary blessings/curses of our legal system is that anybody can file a suit over just about anything. In a justifiable shooting you may win the suit, but you most certainly can be sued, and you still have to pay your attorneys to defend you.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You are incorrect ... you most certainly can be sued as a result of a justifiable shooting in Florida.

The new Florida "castle doctrine" law that was recently signed by the Governor gives immunity from civil suits to people who meet the law's requirements.

 

[grimjaw]

I think you did the right thing. I've never witnessed it, but I and my family have been burglarized twice. It makes you feel so sick and angry you certainly *feel* like shooting somebody. Good thing you took THR and didn't let your emotions get the better of you, for all the reasons in the other posts.

I think it would be good if the cops let the two numbskulls know that you were armed and dangerous.

"Did you two idiots know he had 00 Buck aimed at your head the *entire* time?"

jmm

 

[javafiend]

javafiend, this kind of advice borders on dangerous.

You will note that I gave him no advice on what he should have done.

You claimed that given the fact situation presented, the shooter would "still be indicted." I pointed out that this was incorrect, and gave a link to the legal authority which supported my reasoning. You then provided figures which supported my position.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You claimed that given the fact situation presented, the shooter would "still be indicted." I pointed out that this was incorrect, and gave a link to the legal authority which supported my reasoning. You then provided figures which supported my position.

Good point. I was pretty sloppy in my choice of words. He would face indictment, no necessarily be indicted. That is a big difference legally; but still a substantial legal cost regardless of how it turns out.

 

[richyoung]

i wonder how many of the guys who advised you that you should have shot the suspects, have actually shot people or at least confronted them with a firearm?

Been, there, done that, got the tee shirt ...on the "confronted" angle. I'm not saying YOU should have shot...but I think my reaction would be different from yours.

 

[pioneer]

yes,im wondering if it would be legal in a situation like this to solder razor blades to your possesions on a persons vehicle in such a way that only bad guys get cut and a person doesnt have to take a chance in loosing his stuff,im just curious though if they could sue a person because of hospitol bills.

 

[CZ-100]

You can be sued as the result of a justifiable shooting? I know that isnt the case in FL, I assumed TX was ahead of us on that count...

You are incorrect ... you most certainly can be sued as a result of a justifiable shooting in Florida.

The new Florida "castle doctrine" law that was recently signed by the Governor gives immunity from civil suits to people who meet the law's requirements.

The NEW Florida law does not go into affect until Oct. 1st. 2005.