Dallas June 2 - planned protest update

[oljames3]

If somebody is outside your house throwing bricks through your windows, is that a legal justification for using deadly force?

Daytime or nighttime?

First, IANAL, and this is certainly not legal advice. I would not recommend it, but the penal code says deadly force is justified...

'to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime'

I suppose throwing bricks would qualify, but you can't shoot after they've thrown the brick (or Molotov cocktail, too, which could be arson) and are running away. I would think you gotta catch them after the forward motion has begun (remember the "Tuck Rule" in the NFL?).

Yes, Texas Penal Code 9.42.(2)(A) mentions "criminal mischief during the nighttime." But that is Texas and only Texas. No other state provides for the use of deadly force in defense of mere property. Highly defensible property, perhaps, but not mere property. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTW ... m/PE.9.htm

[RoyGBiv]

https://www.dps.texas.gov/InternetForms ... ltc-16.pdf


SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a
device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create
a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the
actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.

[Paladin]

And the progressive liberal Dallas DA will probably let them go like last night: The following was reported by Fox 4 news reporter on Twitter:

Allison Harris
@AllisonFox4News
BREAKING: Sources tell me Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot is refusing to take the charge for the protesters who are being arrested, as in he is trying to let them loose. We do not have a statement from the DA's office at this time.

Creuzot should be investigated for criminal conspiracy as he is enabling rioting and chaos in Dallas. He has put everyone on notice that in Dallas we now MUST be the protectors of ourselves, our families, and our property... because Creuzot has disavowed his duty to serve the law abiding people of Dallas.

[parabelum]

Same place that arrested Salon owner for trying to work.

[Paladin]

Link to the Fox4News tweet

[powerboatr]

this Dallas DA that refuses to uphold the law or duties of office, what can folks in dallas do? is there a recourse of looter A or rioter B destroy your property or worse, and they are arrested but no charges filed or refuse to prosecute. wouldn't that person whose property was taken be in a position to hold city liable? sickens me that we are at place where elected officials refuse to uphold the duties of their office, this week, but were prosecuting people weeks earlier for opening a bus or going to church.

[Paladin]

Dallas County reports 285 new coronavirus cases, a new single-day high

Jenkins said he was concerned about the health of people who have been protesting in Dallas and their families, saying that large gatherings go against guidance by public health experts.

“We’re going to do everything we can to keep the protesters safe and to that end, I want to see the protesters have the opportunity to get tested as soon as possible,” Jenkins said.

Looks like the rioters are getting more than they planned on.

[Deltaboy]

Jenkins a MOTHO!