TexasCHLforum.com

That clause is there to allow the landlord to evict goofballs. They could choose not to evict you if your actions were justified.

- Jim

Rokyudai wrote:Yes it is unfortunate that he will likely get kicked out but it will be because of a violation of his lease and not for defending his home. There is also an article about a couple just getting ready to go to work at 6am and found 2 people attempting to break into their car. The thieves shot at the couple and took off. Burning hatred for these pukes who leach off of folks that are trying to earn a day's honest
pay.

Hey, no more of that talk, leaching off folks just trying to earn an honest living is about to become the law of the land/

seamusTX wrote:That clause is there to allow the landlord to evict goofballs. They could choose not to evict you if your actions were justified.

- Jim

Sure, but I believe they would evict to save face with the soccer mom tenants. I'm living in the liberal blue dot in the red state afterall.

It would depend upon who the landlord is. I know a guy who owns a lot of rental property. If one of his tenants shot a burglar, he would buy the guy a beer.

A mindless corporate entity would probably evict you.

OTOH, the fact that a break-in occurred at all would not go over well with the soccer moms (how many soccer moms live in apartments, anyway? I thought that was a suburban thing.)

- Jim

I'm in a corporate complex -- Churchill Forge properties. I don't know that many soccer moms actually live here.

Their headquarters are in the Boston area (newton, MA0, so you might be out of luck. It's easy for corporate droids to torque people who live thousands of miles away.

- Jim

I think I would move if criminals tried to victimize me at home. If the apartment management kicks me out for fighting crime, that saves me the hassle and expense of possibly breaking my lease.

LCP_Dogg wrote:

Rokyudai wrote:There is also an article about a couple just getting ready to go to work at 6am and found 2 people attempting to break into their car. The thieves shot at the couple and took off.

I don't believe that justifies the use of deadly force...

My wife and I were just talking about (the soccer dad and) this exact scenario over lunch today.

I believe "attempting to break into a vehicle" does not justify the use of deadly force, but it does justify the use of force according to PC §9.41(a).

Now if they had stolen belongings already in their possession, then yes, deadly force is justified under PC §9.42(a).

I think the same might go for arson, like if you see someone with a gas can standing next to your vehicle, you aren't really justified to use force against them unless they are pouring it on the vehicle or property.

CAN SOMEONE CONFIRM WHAT I'M SAYING HERE??

Here's the applicable part of § 9.42:

§ 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;


IANAL, but my reading of this says if someone is breaking into your vehicle, or attempting to break into your vehicle, at night, you are justified in using deadly force to prevent that break in. During daylight deadly force is NOT justified to prevent your vehicle from being broken in to - unless you're in it at the time, at which time the Castle Doctrine takes effect.

Some correct if wrong but during my most recent CHL class they had the 1st chair felony prosecutor for Bexar County come out and cover the TPC. He explained it like this.....

If you are parked at the mall and someone steals your rims...... that is theft. If you are at the mall and someone is in the process of stealing your rims and you show up and you reasonably believe they have used force OR the threat of force (even if no weapon is displayed)...... that is robbery. Once the BG places a body part across the threshold into the vehicle/home....that is burglary wether you are present or not.

Maybe they were back, and possibly getting ready to enter the vehicle...Iminent commision, so maybe it wasnt theft he was shooting at.....Even if it was it was nighttime, perhaps during the daylight he would still have been justified......Truth be told we will never know what REALLY HAPPENED by reading articles, Details are always left out.

I hope everything works out for him........ Anyone in SA feel like exercising there 1st amendment right...... assembly, protest, etc. I would be there if I wasnt deployed but maybe there is something we could do.

Bryan

Kythas wrote: § 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;


IANAL, but my reading of this says if someone is breaking into your vehicle, or attempting to break into your vehicle, at night, you are justified in using deadly force to prevent that break in. During daylight deadly force is NOT justified to prevent your vehicle from being broken in to - unless you're in it at the time, at which time the Castle Doctrine takes effect.

IANAL, but I do believe breaking into a car is burglary and therefore day/night plays no part. The day/night differentiators are for theft (e.g. taking a purse that doesn't belong to that's lying out on the sidewalk) and criminal mischief (e.g. vandalizing a fence with graffiti).

Edit: I make no representation as to whether or not deadly force should be used.

2nd Edit: I found an article that states burglary of a vehicle does not necessarily equate to burglary as used in this statute. So burglary of a vehicle may not be an offense for which deadly force could be used. Again IANAL, so corrections are always appreciated.

Your may be right. I had forgotten or never knew that Texas has a crime of burglary of a vehicle;

§ 30.04. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he breaks into or enters a vehicle or any part of a vehicle with intent to commit any felony or theft.

Unlike burglary of a habitation, this can be a misdemeanor under some circumstances.

I wonder if there is any case law or history of burglary of a vehicle being used as a justification for the use of deadly force.

- Jim

Check out the quotations in this article: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_ ... 01039.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Robert Ray has been a Real Estate attorney for 25 years and handles evictions. He says what this comes down to is how many times the man fired his gun.

"One shot probably would have scared the guys off. Five or six shots, that's going to sound like a war going on," Ray said.

Ray says that weakens the man's case for Texas justice.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Check out the quotations in this article: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_ ... 01039.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Robert Ray has been a Real Estate attorney for 25 years and handles evictions. He says what this comes down to is how many times the man fired his gun.

Geez, can we get an opinion from a tax attorney, too?

txflyer wrote:

Kythas wrote: § 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;




2nd Edit: I found an article that states burglary of a vehicle does not necessarily equate to burglary as used in this statute. So burglary of a vehicle may not be an offense for which deadly force could be used. Again IANAL, so corrections are always appreciated.

txflyer,

What article, could you link please.

Secondly if TPC 9.42 lists burglary, wouldn't it be safe to say the legislative intent was to cover all burglaries or else it could have specifically stated arson, burglary (of a habitat), etc, etc.

Thirdly, doesn't Castle Doctrine incorporate your vehicle with the same sanctity as your home

Just questions in my quest for knowledge and understanding. Thanks to all!!!

A thought occurred to me or rather a memory that is. When I was an apartment dweller, I noticed that most I had been in used a standard lease. That lease was devised by the TAA (Texas Apartment Association - ?).

If that is still the case (using TAA lease form), this may be a widespread problem just waiting to rear it's head.
Might behoove some folks to take a close look at their lease.
Just a thought.

As to the apartment complex evicting the tenant, pretty lousy.

After all, how dare the citizen create a hazardous environment for some thieves trying to earn an honest living.