Blackwater OPS
New member
I will risk my life to protect the safety and security of where I live. This time it's a honda, next time it could be a life. I will not stand by and do nothing while criminals operate with impunity in the place I live.
Doug, the starter of this thread said he wasn't the owner of the car. He is trying to defend someone elses property with deadly force which is plain stupidity-especially since there was nobody in the car being forced out it was just parked in the driveway.
Doug, I'm sorry, I just think you're really missing the point here. Garand, Steven, Model520. . . . these guys are telling you what the law says and what IS going to be the consequence of your proposed course of action. You're arguing with them as if they were presenting their opinions.
tsavo,You don't have authority to use deadly force to protect someone from taking your neighbors car in their driveway, that goes for all 50 states.
§ 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.
...
§ 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.
§ 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.
§ 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.
That's silly, of course it matters. And no, a trial is NOT automatic. There have been several cases in the news over the past few years where people shot to protect property and weren't prosecuted. The law is what it is. It is complicated and restrictive, but it really DOES allow a citizen to protect his property with deadly force, if all the stringent requirements are met.I don't care what the law says in Texas about protecting property, that really doesn't matter. The fact is you're going to be on trial simply because the law isn't cut and dry.
The law is never that simple, and you're restating it in such a manner as to make it sound stupid. Nevertheless, I just showed you a law that said a citizen can kill a person for stealing a car under certain circumstances. Do you think a cop would be more restricted?show me 1 law that says an officer can walk up and kill a person simply because they are breaking into a car.
Of course I'm not telling you that--in fact it's mind-boggling that anyone could read what I've posted here and come up with such a ridiculous summary.So you're telling me that if you walk up behind someone who is trying to steal your neighbors cd player out of his car and shoot him in the back of the head you're not going on trail? lol, that's great.
197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.
So you're saying I can just walk up behind someone stealing my lawn gnomes and crush they're skull with an axe
If you think your life is worth risking for a 10 thousand dollar car I feel really bad for you. Lets just say the car is worth 10 grand, that's about a months pay for most successful people.