question regarding the use of deadly force to protect property (Texas)
- Thread starter Pecos21
- Start date
Eghad,
This thread is not about looking for an excuse to shoot somebody.
Attempts on property are an attempt on life and liberty of others. As the old saying goes, we have a right to Life, Liberty and Property (or pursuit of happiness = to do that you need property) These three concepts are connected.
The War for Independence was a war, to a large extent, to protect property. The Parliament of England and it's King was not enacting laws to physically kill the colonists. It was largely violating their right to property and affecting their lives.
Well, when theives are trying to steal from you, they are doing the same thing.
This thread is not about looking for an excuse to shoot somebody.
Attempts on property are an attempt on life and liberty of others. As the old saying goes, we have a right to Life, Liberty and Property (or pursuit of happiness = to do that you need property) These three concepts are connected.
The War for Independence was a war, to a large extent, to protect property. The Parliament of England and it's King was not enacting laws to physically kill the colonists. It was largely violating their right to property and affecting their lives.
Well, when theives are trying to steal from you, they are doing the same thing.
Ausserordeutlich
Moderator
I don't live in Texas; never will. Even if I did, I'd never take a pot-shot at a fleeing Glenn. 
For me it gets rather muddled. I guess different jurisdictions have different perspectives. I'm in California. From my CCW class, I gathered that, if there is cause to pull the gun, then there is cause to shoot the S.O.B. If there is no reason to shoot, then there is no reason to draw. To draw without reason is brandishing, even putting your hand under your shirt, as though you have a gun, when really you don't, can be so charged. Here brandishing, I understand to be a felony.
Property does not form a 'cause'. Only fear of death, or serious injury form a 'cause'. I think the person, who suggested getting to know your own jurisdictions laws, gave sage advice.
Property does not form a 'cause'. Only fear of death, or serious injury form a 'cause'. I think the person, who suggested getting to know your own jurisdictions laws, gave sage advice.
At another forum, Texags.com, I found a very good response. This isn't my own, I'm just relaying it here.
If you have to wonder for even a split second whether or not to shoot, then you should not shoot. If you genuinely fear for your life or a loved ones life then it shouldn't matter what the concequences are nomatter what state you live in.
Yes- in Texas you can shoot people for all kinds of reasons, but only one legitimate one comes to mind and that is to defend innocent life. All others will leave you bankrupt after attorney's fees and even good shoots can also leave you bankrupt but alive and banrupt.
Pretty much any criminal mischief after dark is OK to shoot in Texas but it doesn't mean that 12 peers won't be judging you later either civily or criminally.
If I am sitting on a jury and you shot somebody for stealing your stuff or trespass, I will not convict you. I may be a rare person and there will be 11 others on the jury.
Hook- Amen. I believe if you pull a gun you'd better be prepared to use the gun. I also believe that if you shoot, you shoot to kill and when asked, you state: I would like to have my attorney present before answering any questions.
If you have to wonder for even a split second whether or not to shoot, then you should not shoot. If you genuinely fear for your life or a loved ones life then it shouldn't matter what the concequences are nomatter what state you live in.
Yes- in Texas you can shoot people for all kinds of reasons, but only one legitimate one comes to mind and that is to defend innocent life. All others will leave you bankrupt after attorney's fees and even good shoots can also leave you bankrupt but alive and banrupt.
Pretty much any criminal mischief after dark is OK to shoot in Texas but it doesn't mean that 12 peers won't be judging you later either civily or criminally.
If I am sitting on a jury and you shot somebody for stealing your stuff or trespass, I will not convict you. I may be a rare person and there will be 11 others on the jury.
Hook- Amen. I believe if you pull a gun you'd better be prepared to use the gun. I also believe that if you shoot, you shoot to kill and when asked, you state: I would like to have my attorney present before answering any questions.
The TX penal code is posted online. I've reposted parts of them here a few times.
The applicable sections to this discussion are 9.41, 9.42 and 9.43.
You can not just "shoot someone for stealing after dark", the law explains the circumstances under which it is legal. One of the most important requirements is that the owner must believe there is no other way to recover/protect the property. Insurance has been mentioned as one way to recover many types of property.
It IS, of course, legal in some situations to shoot to protect/recover property in TX. But legal does NOT mean you won't go to court, and being acquitted doesn't mean you won't be sued civilly. If either of those happens, you'd better have been protecting some REALLY valuable property, because even "winning" can be very expensive.
The Castle Bill (if it passes as it currently stands) will not have any effect on this discussion since the Castle Bill is about defense of person, not property.
And, of course, killing a person is a very traumatic act with far-reaching effects and consequences. In other words, a rational, mature person will avoid it if it can be reasonably avoided--even if the law gives the green light.
The applicable sections to this discussion are 9.41, 9.42 and 9.43.
You can not just "shoot someone for stealing after dark", the law explains the circumstances under which it is legal. One of the most important requirements is that the owner must believe there is no other way to recover/protect the property. Insurance has been mentioned as one way to recover many types of property.
It IS, of course, legal in some situations to shoot to protect/recover property in TX. But legal does NOT mean you won't go to court, and being acquitted doesn't mean you won't be sued civilly. If either of those happens, you'd better have been protecting some REALLY valuable property, because even "winning" can be very expensive.
The Castle Bill (if it passes as it currently stands) will not have any effect on this discussion since the Castle Bill is about defense of person, not property.
And, of course, killing a person is a very traumatic act with far-reaching effects and consequences. In other words, a rational, mature person will avoid it if it can be reasonably avoided--even if the law gives the green light.
You are of course right that the law is a little more complicated than just shooting some piece of trash at night for stealing and you might face the wrath of a self-righteous DA in criminal court or a bleeding heart PI attorney in civil court. BUT,
People throw the word Insurance around like it is money that magically comes out of the sky every time a crisis happens. 1) Insurance will not always pay for something, they will typically try to find an excuse not to pay 2) even if Insurance does pay for it they can still raise your insurance rates 3) Insurance does not give you back the stolen property, it just gives you money in it's place, while this money might replace the stolen item it still might not replace it's value to you (an heirloom or special gift) or replace the time (another aspect of your life) it spent to replace everything and 4) Insurance money is not magic, it has to come from somebody's pocket. Anytime someone steals, SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE loses something because of the thief.
I have a very dim view of stealing and thieves. I think the law ought to allow us to be able to stop the thieves and they should not be allowed to act with impunity if they are caught in the act.
People throw the word Insurance around like it is money that magically comes out of the sky every time a crisis happens. 1) Insurance will not always pay for something, they will typically try to find an excuse not to pay 2) even if Insurance does pay for it they can still raise your insurance rates 3) Insurance does not give you back the stolen property, it just gives you money in it's place, while this money might replace the stolen item it still might not replace it's value to you (an heirloom or special gift) or replace the time (another aspect of your life) it spent to replace everything and 4) Insurance money is not magic, it has to come from somebody's pocket. Anytime someone steals, SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE loses something because of the thief.
I have a very dim view of stealing and thieves. I think the law ought to allow us to be able to stop the thieves and they should not be allowed to act with impunity if they are caught in the act.
Property was an issue. However due process and laws/ taxation without representation were also big issues. The Crown was using ex-post facto arrests and imprisioning folks without due process. That was a state government that was doing that not a criminal/person.
I would also grade a civilization on how it values life. I could understand using force at night if someone is stealing your car. That's how you get to work to make a living so that could have a drastic effect on you.
Would you shoot a guy for stealing a $30.00 propane tank?
True, but property or wealth (the basic means of being fruitful in life) was what the Parliament wanted to control. Arms were an issue because they were the basic means of defending liberty and propert. Religion was an issue because the Calvinistic faith taught the colonists of New England and Virginia that a man was to be fruitful with his labor property and liberty was essential to this. trusting power in one central government was dangerous because of exactly what was going on in their day. They were taught that government was necessary, but when it abused it's purpose and stepped outside it's boundaries it was to be resisted. Hence the old battle cry, "Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God!" The colonists resisted in protest in one way or another, which usually resulted in the arrests without due process that you mentioned.
individual or a governmental body, large scale or small, it is still the same principle.
Right, but why only at night? (aside from it being technically against the law) Car thieves operate during the day too.
In principle, YES. In practice, depending on what was going on, probably NOT. If someone walked in my office right now and stole a pencil, I'd hardly miss it, BUT the principle of it is he is a thief (or just forgot to hand me back my pencil
) who was willing to steal and if had the chance, would steal my computer next, then the money in my bank account and then my car. The old saying, "Give'um an inch and they'll take a mile." Thieves are leeches who live of the blood of others.Now, a pencil is a bit of an exaggeration. But I hear people in here say all the time, "I wouldn't shoot someone over my widescreen TV." Okay, that's $2000 gone. Now what if that thief decides to come back and get your $1000 computer, and then your car etc. etc. THEN you have to take time to recover it, get the insurance to pay for it (if they will) and then hope they don't raise your insurance rates.
Let's say I catch a man on my back patio grabbing and making off with my spare propane tank. What do I do? He is heading to a car parked out front. To just let him get away is absurd. To whip out your cell phone and call 911 is absurd too. The police will only get there in time to take a statement if even that and will never catch the criminal. Meanwhile he si free to go rob someone else, or you of a lot more when he decides to break into your house in a few weeks when you are out of town. If I try to stop him, he is going to probably resist. He is willing to cause physical harm to steal from me. He might very will have a knife or gun on him and be willing to shoot me.
I too think that a measure of a civilized people is how they value life. But lets not get our priorities reversed. The thief is the one who has shown no value for life as he is willing and has robbed you of the fruit of your labor (your life) Life, Liberty and Property are all connected.
If there is obviously a way the robbery can be prevented or stopped or the thief chased down without killing him, then that option should be taken, but letting thieves act with impunity is devaluing hard work and labor of good and honest people. Excessive force (truly excessive force) should be dealt with as well.
they may not be legally "allowed" to do it, but they can sure get away with it if you don't stop them right then and there. You might be able to tackle them and be okay if they don't have a knife. You might have a few neighbors on hand to help you. But what if you are alone and he is a bigger man than you? The police typically don't catch them.
This is why, as far as I am concerned, deadly force should be allowed to protect property day or night. If excessive force is evident then it should be looked into and dealt with. (such as if during the day I see one man with no gun in hand in my driveway hotwiring my car and I go up and just shoot him in the back rather than give him the opportunity to surrender. At night on the other hand, you can see less of him and what is going on around you so shooting first is understandable).
This is why, as far as I am concerned, deadly force should be allowed to protect property day or night. If excessive force is evident then it should be looked into and dealt with. (such as if during the day I see one man with no gun in hand in my driveway hotwiring my car and I go up and just shoot him in the back rather than give him the opportunity to surrender. At night on the other hand, you can see less of him and what is going on around you so shooting first is understandable).
Which part of the TX penal code do you interpret to mean that you can shoot a person in the back without giving them a chance to surrrender because they're stealing from you at night?Doug.38PR said:
Call the police. Tell the man to leave your tank, that you've called the police.Doug.38PR said:
Get the license # and give it to the police
The law doesn't say you have to let him get away, read 9.41. Calling the police to report a crime is never absurd, although it's not necessarily the ONLY thing you should do.
Maybe and Maybe. You want to shoot someone because you think that maybe the police won't get there fast enough to arrest him?
Or it might be someone from the gas company replacing your tank--or someone who has the wrong address. Even if he IS stealing from you, you don't get to shoot him just because he might steal from someone else or might come back to steal from you again.
That's a lot of speculation being used as a justification for shooting someone.
TX law is very lenient about this sort of thing. The idea that you need to be able to shoot people to protect property, even when current TX law doesn't allow it is a real stretch unless you just really like the idea of being able to shoot people.
As I said earlier, a rational, mature person will avoid killing a person if it can be reasonably avoided--even if the law gives the green light.
None. I wasn't talking about current interpretation of the law, a sentence or two prior to what you quote I said:
(Emphasis added)
And if he uses a four letter word and takes off (with your property)? no good.
good idea. But what if the car is too far away for me to see the license plate or takes off too fast or even covered at that moment to avoid identification?
Calling the police per se isn't absurd, just the idea that if someone is stealing from you and is about to get away, you have the means to stop them and you pick up the phone and call the police and hope they arrive in time.
I would say Maybe and Probably. They will likely get a statement from you but the probably won't catch the criminal (especially if you live in an urban area) So the answer is, again depending on what is going on and what he is stealing, I would shoot him because the police will probably not catch him if he is not stopped. Even if they do catch him, the chances of you recovering your property is remote and even if you to recover it, it is highly unlikley it will be in the condition it was when it was in your custody last.
I think someoen from the gas company would say "hello" and tell me who he was the moment I stepped out he door rather than shouting profanity at me and taking off. And it's not about whether the law currently says "I get to shoot him" it's about that the law should allow me to protect my property at any means at my disposal
It's almost a sure thing with a hardened criminal. Even a crackhead will kill so he can get merchandise to sell for dope. Why should I take any chances?
None of this is about my wanting to go out and shoot people (come on!) You're right, a rational, mature person will avoid if it can reasonably be avoided. Excessive force is something I said should be guarded against. But people should be able to use any means at their disposal to protect what they have earned. Not flipping open the phone and hoping the police get there unless it is after dark or if mr. criminal decides to pull weapon and threaten them with physical violence. Or tackling them and hope I don't wind up with a knife in my gut or having my gun snatched from my holster
The question was specifically directed at this comment that you made: "such as if during the day I see one man with no gun in hand in my driveway hotwiring my car and I go up and just shoot him in the back rather than give him the opportunity to surrender. At night on the other hand, you can see less of him and what is going on around you so shooting first is understandable"
It seems very clear that you're saying that shooting an unarmed person in the daytime without giving him a chance to surrender is wrong but "at night on the other hand" it would be understandable.
It seems very clear that you're saying that shooting an unarmed person in the daytime without giving him a chance to surrender is wrong but "at night on the other hand" it would be understandable.
in many cases, yes. It makes sense, at night in a dimly lit spot, you can't see if he is armed, you aren't as able to tell who all he has with him, it may be to lure you in so they can rob you personally. Could be a lot of possibilities. The risk is a lot greater and the situation a lot more unknown.
