What are the laws on protecting your car from a burglar

I mean its pretty tough to watch someone walk away with your hard earned things... I really dont make much and its kinda hard to be able to replace stolen items... It takes me five months to save up enough to buy something nice and someone just takes it in two min... some people say its easier to pay the deductible. But what if I dont have full coverage... Plus its harder to pay five hundred dollars in deductible fees when you got three hundred of loss and damages.. Plus 98% of the time the cops won't show up on time to catch the bad guy.. in some posts it seems like all you can do is just sit there and wait and hope for the cops to show up in time to catch the bad guy, cus if they dont you just got stuck with a broken window to replace and all the stolen items.. Oh and lets hope they didn't break anything else inside your vehicle.. some one mentioned to take either video or picture to show the cops and insurance.. Come on bro its night time how clear can the picture really be.. Unless you walk up to the guy.. Plus if they see the flash they gonna run and leave ... And all you end up with Is a blurry pic and damages to fix... it takes a thief less than a min to take your things do you really feel like you got time to hear the alarm go off or the window, call the cops, get your camera from were ever you got it at get it ready and take a good pic in time.. I think one min is enough time to grab the glock and handle business then call the cops... And by the way guys this is texas, we dont play that b.s over here.. I rather pay lawyer fees and know that justice was served.. Than to pay damages and know that the bad guy is smoking it up with his friends talking about how someone just got jacked.. I guess its also a pride thing,i am willing to go thru the consiquences than to just sit there and take it..
 
EddieDaGreat,

I've almost been in the situation you requested feedback on, and the statutes / legal advice that's been proffered in this thread seems to be clear.

I stopped a burglar in Texas a few years back who was breaking into a house, not a car. I was armed and about 10 feet away when I startled him and announced myself. He ultimately complied and got on the ground, but not until "racking the gun in his face" seemed to convince him of the seriousness of the issue and his ultimate compliance. I could see having pulled the trigger if he advanced or did something stupid, which he luckily did not.

I've been on a jury in Texas, and would have a difficult time finding someone justified in shooting as you described in your scenario, from an apartment window.

Good luck.
 
EddieDaGreat said:
...I rather pay lawyer fees and know that justice was served.. Than to pay damages and know that the bad guy is smoking it up with his friends talking about how someone just got jacked...
Click to expand...
If you're lucky, they run a $1,000 to $2,000. If you're not lucky, the lawyer will be getting from $250/hour to $350/hour, or more; and it adds up fast. If you're arrested, you may need to make bail. If you don't have the full amount of the cash, you'll pay a bondsman 10% of the bail amount to post a bond on your behalf.

All the legal stuff will probably cause you to lose some time from work. Your family, friends, neighbors and co-workers may or may not understand. They may treat you differently -- may be good or not. If you did shoot the thief, you are now the person in your circle who has committed an act of extreme violence on another person. That sort of thing usually affects relationships.

It may be one thing to put yourself and your family through all that when your life or one of their lives was on the line. It may be another thing to put yourself and your family through all of that over possessions.

No one likes getting robbed. It's an insult and an awful violation of your sense of personal security. And we've all worked hard for what we have. And you're lucky to live in Texas where you can even contemplate using lethal force to stop a theft (as long as it's at night). In many other States, even threatening lethal force to stop someone who was merely stealing would almost certainly be a felony (and a loss of the right to possess a gun).

But even in Texas, there can be a price tag for protecting your property and pride. It's up to you. You do the math.
 
I think if a there is a broken window there is personal stuff scattered all inside your vehicle the door is open and there someone there with a screw driver in his hand isn't that enough justification to shoot legally.??.. According to post number three right? I mean I'm just not gonna shoot someone with out being certain that he is stealing from me...
 
It's important to note that section 9.42 is NOT the entire text of TX law on using deadly force for property protection. The conditions in 9.41 must ALSO be satisfied.

The reason that it's not terribly common to see prosecutions for such actions likely has a lot more to do with the difficulty of indicting a defendant in some areas than it does with the letter of the law.
I think if a there is a broken window there is personal stuff scattered all inside your vehicle the door is open and there someone there with a screw driver in his hand isn't that enough justification to shoot legally.??..
Click to expand...
Absolutely not!

That is not at all what the law says.

§ 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.​
You are talking about a simple theft, not a robbery or aggravated robbery or burglary and therefore what it comes down to is that you can legally use deadly force to prevent criminal mischief and theft ONLY if ALL of the following conditions apply:
  • The crimes happen at night AND
  • You were in lawful possession of the property in question prior to the incident AND
  • You reasonably believe that only force can prevent the damage/loss of property AND
  • You reasonably believe that immediate action is necessary to prevent the damage/loss of property AND
  • The force is used immediately AND
  • You reasonably believe the person taking the property has no legal claim on it (i.e. no shooting the repo man) OR you know he's taking it by force, threat or fraud AND
  • You reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the crime AND
  • You reasonably believe that only the use of deadly force can prevent the crime OR that using any other method (besides deadly force) would expose you or another innocent to substantial risk of serious injury or death.
You can use deadly force to recover property stolen in a burglary, stolen in a robbery or stolen in a theft that took place during the nighttime ONLY if ALL of the following conditions apply:
  • You were in lawful possession of the property in question prior to the incident AND
  • You reasonably believe that only force can recover the property AND
  • You reasonably believe that immediate action is necessary to recover the property AND
  • The force is used in "fresh pursuit" AND
  • You reasonably believe the person taking the property has no legal claim on it (i.e. no shooting the repo man) OR you know he took it by force, threat or fraud AND
  • You reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to recover the property AND
  • You reasonably believe that only the use of deadly force can recover the property OR that using any other method (besides deadly force) would expose you or another innocent to substantial risk of serious injury or death.
I rather pay lawyer fees and know that justice was served.. Than to pay damages and know that the bad guy is smoking it up with his friends talking about how someone just got jacked.. I guess its also a pride thing,i am willing to go thru the consiquences than to just sit there and take it..
Click to expand...
If you shoot him without the proper legal justification then justice has not been served and you're as much of a bad guy as he is.

Besides, the deadly force laws are not there to give citizens a way to mete out justice, they are there to allow citizens to protect themselves (and in very restricted circumstances their property) when there is NO OTHER reasonable method for doing so.

The idea that the law gives you, the citizen, the right to hand out justice is NOT consistent with the principles governing the legal use of deadly force.

The legal use of deadly force is NOT about handing out justice with a gun, it is about preventing serious crimes under very carefully defined circumstances when no other reasonable options are available.
 
EddieDaGreat said:
I think if a there is a broken window there is personal stuff scattered all inside your vehicle the door is open and there someone there with a screw driver in his hand isn't that enough justification to shoot legally.??..
Click to expand...

Eddie, I highly recommend you talk to some local criminal defense attorneys in your area so you can get an idea of how much it will cost just to represent you at a Grand Jury hearing and so you can get better answers to your questions. Because if you really believe that the above is enough reason to shoot someone, it is just a matter of time until you need an attorney, so you might as well do the research now.

As pointed out earlier - it doesn't matter if your particular shooting is the most justifiable shooting that has ever been seen in the history of Texas law - you are still going to go before the Grand Jury for possible indictment.

Now apparently, you recognized that the moraility of shooting someone over property was enough of a controversial idea that even in a room full of gun owners who favor broad self-defense laws, it might cause the topic to go in a different direction than you wanted. If that is true here, then how likely is it that people with those beliefs are on your Grand Jury? If they are on your Grand Jury, are there any gray areas in the law? Phrases like "reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary" that they might interpret differently? Just something to think about, since as fiddletown pointed out, the actual financial costs of shooting someone, even justifiably, can easily hit several thousand dollars - and that doesn't include personal costs (lost wages, being forced to move, losing your job, etc.), which are all things that have happened to people who used deadly force in much more serious situations than loss of property.
 
It's a little off topic, but why is the only question often shoot or don't shoot, when an array of force options is what is really needed to confront a rapidly changing threat level?

Example: I always carry pepper spray when I am armed. which is always when outside of the home.

Confront him with a holstered pistol, hidden but accessible, pepper spray in your off hand a and a big-a&& flashlight in the other. In your scenario, I would deploy the pepper spray without warning to 'soften him up'. If he tries to fight, start thumping soft tissue until his attitude changes.

Watch his hands. If he's breaking in to your car, he has tools that double as deadly weapons. That may be the justification to shoot right there.

Try to keep the car, yours or your neighbors, or a car door between you and the perp, if possible, until the jerk is either gone or under your control.

Make sure you get the police en-route before you attempt any of this, and make sure they recognize YOU as the caller, and not the bad guy.

If you only show up with one tool, which one are you going to use? Is it the right one in every case, and if not, what's that going to cost you?

My two cents.
 
The original question would be unjustified use of lethal force, called murder. And if you didn't kill him, he would be justified in 'self-defense' against you. Also, you'd be open to civil lawsuits.

Better to grab a camera and snap pics and call the cops.
 
Last edited:
Kind of a moot point anyway, most car thieves run when confronted. The few that would consider sticking around will usually change their mind if they notice the .45 in your hand :D
 
Eddie, in your first post you were leaning out the window observing the thief.....now it's property strewn all over the interior, as well?

So what? Your car and everything in it is a THING, not a PERSON. You have INSURANCE. You can RENT a car for a day or two and INSURANCE pays for it.

Cry the world a river. You absolutely don't kill PEOPLE, even scumbucket thieves, to protect your STUFF.

First you call 911, then you wait indoors and do nothing until the Police arrive or he tries to leave before the Police get there. Then you can do your duty as a citizen and detain him.

But for you, having posted your question about killing him, not pointing a weapon at him to detain him, or anything of less violence, you should avoid getting into anything less than a true life-or-death situation. Your post will be resurrected and read aloud in court and media, good luck getting out of having to plea bargain for the prospect of a normal life for some years.

You will wish you just got a new stereo or car from the insurance company, I guarantee it.
 
i dont know how the term burglary is defined in TX law... (i would assume it is the same since federal courts use it also) but in GA, burglary is, in my own words because im too tired to look it up, burglary is entering a house (or in this case a car) with the INTENT to commit a crime.

so you break and enter, that is burglary. if you boost a car stereo you get burglary charges, as well as theft by taking.

assuming the TX law defines burglary the same as GA law, then any reasonable person who sees a man (assumed stranger to the neighborhood) standing beside a car with a broken drivers side window and an alarm going off could assume a crime in progress and detain the perp at gunpoint until an LEO arrives.


BUT!!!! here comes the what ifs.... you stated bad neighborhood, nightime.... what if you go down to confront the thief and detain him, and find that he/she has a buddy where you could not see them from your window. they both have guns.... now you are 2v1 and in a crossfire situation. somewhere you want to be over a stereo or some cd's?
 
i dont know how the term burglary is defined in TX law... in my own words because im too tired to look it up, burglary is entering a house (or in this case a car) with the INTENT to commit a crime.
Click to expand...
m17s_guy, if you read the statute quoted in Mike Irwin's post #26...
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:... (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime...
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

Based on the "imminent commission" wording, in TX, one is allowed to use deadly force to prevent burglary before the deed actually happens, IF the laundry list of preconditions in Mike Irwin's post is still satisfied. This is a BIG IF.
...then any reasonable person who sees a man (assumed stranger to the neighborhood) standing beside a car with a broken drivers side window and an alarm going off could assume a crime in progress and detain the perp at gunpoint until an LEO arrives.
Click to expand...
What if the man is a friend or relative of a neighbor who came outside to investigate what was going on?

Given the preconditions in the statute, I would not feel confident using deadly force unless I actually saw the crime occur and I strongly believed that the conditions in § 9.42(3)(A) or (3)(B) were satisfied, e.g. the man is conspicuously holding an object that could be used as a weapon, and he is close enough to attack if I simply yelled at him to drop the stolen goods.

Also, FYI it cannot merely be A car, it must be YOUR car or a car belonging to another person as outlined in § 9.43:
§ 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.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

Your neighbor's car is probably not on the list.
 
Actually, Joe Horn claimed deadly force in self defense after one of the men ran at him, not defense of property. He was also extremely fortunate that a plainclothes detective had arrived on the scene in time to witness the shooting and backed his version of events, since he ended up shooting an unarmed man in the back.

Even with that luck, he had his house picketed by local radicals, had his life turned upside down and still had to lawyer up. Great neighbor; but I bet the guy whose property he defended didn't pay those bills or get the death threats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top