Defense of 3rd Person's Property

[locke_n_load]

Per TPC chapter 9, you can use force and in certain circumstances, deadly force, for criminal mischief (vandalism). It specifically states "Protection of Third Person's Property." Would public/gov't property be considered "third person's" property? Or does it only apply to private property?

This stems from this article about using deadly force to protect confederate statues:
http://www.iamatexan.com/2017/08/20/pol ... ign=buffer

[RoyGBiv]

I have a hard time coming up with any property I'd shoot someone to protect, no less a statue on government property. I don't care for AntiFa (for example), but I'm not willing to spend the rest my life with a shooting (possible death) on my conscience (even if legally justified) over a Robert E Lee statue with no directly related, immediate risk to persons.

Grandmas ring? Maybe. Even then, not certain.

YMMV

[Scott B.]

Is government considered a 3rd person? I don't know the answer.

I'm going to go out on a limb say that as a private citizen if you use deadly force to protect a statue you're going to have a real hard time finding a grand jury that would consider that necessary or reasonable.

Maybe if it was a national treasure, but that's why you have federal park police.


FYI, the guy who made that infamous facebook post is an LTC instructor. Don't know if he's on this forum or not. He did lose his volunteer job.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2 ... nt-vandals

[Soccerdad1995]

Is there a provision for the use of deadly force to prevent Criminal Mischief? That might be something else to look at as opposed to defense of property.

[oljames3]

Is there a provision for the use of deadly force to prevent Criminal Mischief? That might be something else to look at as opposed to defense of property.

If we are talking about fixed monuments, no. Texas Penal Code Title 2, Chapter 9, Section 9.43 refers to "tangible, movable property of a third person."
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/S ... m/PE.9.htm

[apostate]

Is there a provision for the use of deadly force to prevent Criminal Mischief? That might be something else to look at as opposed to defense of property.

During the nighttime... but do you really want to make that argument to a jury in some place like Harris County?
Leaving aside the moral and ethical questions.

[Soccerdad1995]

Is there a provision for the use of deadly force to prevent Criminal Mischief? That might be something else to look at as opposed to defense of property.

During the nighttime... but do you really want to make that argument to a jury in some place like Harris County?
Leaving aside the moral and ethical questions.

To me, the moral and ethical questions are even bigger than the legal questions. But considering just the legal side of things, there are a lot of things that I am legally able to do, but would not actually do because I don't think they are "right".

Realistically, I don't see myself shooting someone because they are trying to vandalize or tear down a statue. But I could see myself confronting them. That confrontation might then turn into a possible use of defensive force situation. I do agree that if someone sniped a vandal from a safe distance away that might not play well in front of a jury, regardless of what the law says.

[TreyHouston]

This does NOT SOUND like a smart discussion to have , much less here!

[bblhd672]

This does NOT SOUND like a smart discussion to have , much less here!

It is becoming obvious that everyone who believes in freedom and liberty are a potential target.
Guarding your thoughts on public social media outlets such as this forum should be practiced.
There are most likely "plants" who are members here who whose purpose is to gather information and intelligence.

[ninjabread]

I do agree that if someone sniped a vandal from a safe distance away that might not play well in front of a jury, regardless of what the law says.

Any sniper who gets caught deserves what comes next.

[The Annoyed Man]

Is government considered a 3rd person? I don't know the answer.

I'm going to go out on a limb say that as a private citizen if you use deadly force to protect a statue you're going to have a real hard time finding a grand jury that would consider that necessary or reasonable.

Maybe if it was a national treasure, but that's why you have federal park police.


FYI, the guy who made that infamous facebook post is an LTC instructor. Don't know if he's on this forum or not. He did lose his volunteer job.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2 ... nt-vandals

Someone tried to quote that post to me on Facebook. I disabused him of the notion.

[srothstein]

I have seen this post in several spots on Facebook already. I did not know he lost the reserve officer slot, but it seems very reasonable to me. He missed a significant portion of the law and an officer should know better. He did at least point out the "at night" clause, but he missed the part that the owner of the property must ask you to defend it or the law must give you an affirmative duty to do so before you are justified.

Since I sincerely doubt that any city or county has asked any citizen other than their police/deputies/paid security guards to protect government property, this means you have no legal permission to use force or deadly force to protect a statue.

[locke_n_load]

1. I am not a plant or anti-gunner in disguise. Please see my hundreds of other posts.
2. I would not advise anyone to shoot over a statue, and I tell my LTC students that I highly advise to not shoot over any property at any time.
3. I was strictly wanting to discuss this from a legal standpoint only. Again, see #2.

It is interesting that the penal code specifically states "tangible, movable property" in some of the code - one could use deadly force to stop criminal mischief at night for someone spray painting a car, but not a house.

[WTR]

If they ever try to deface Stone Mountain in GA there might be a shooting war.

[cirus]

My gun is staying holstered unless it involves me directly. If a 3rd party is involved they're on their on. It's not that I don't care it's that I don't care for prison. The law is not on my side.