Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:17 pm
by kauboy
My example in use of deadly force is not to imply that you may shoot someone because they have your property. It is a situation representing the recovery of the propery in which you are met with a life threatening situation. In this instance, you are justified because the robber has now turned from fleeing to threatening and the situation has changed. Now you may defend your life by use of deadly force if it is necessary.
Situation: Thief is running down the street and you make pursuit(your personall opinions about whether this is wise or not are not necessary). If, during the pursuit you are able to grab/hit/knock down the perp and they pull a gun on you, you are now, AND ONLY NOW(barring the stipulations in 9.42), well within your rights to use deadly force against the other.
^^^This is what I was trying to illustrate.
Legally this is no longer the use of deadly force to recover property. It has changed into a protection of life, even though you started the pursuit and aggrevated the situation with the use of force.
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:52 pm
by txinvestigator
kauboy wrote:My example in use of deadly force is not to imply that you may shoot someone because they have your property. It is a situation representing the recovery of the propery in which you are met with a life threatening situation. In this instance, you are justified because the robber has now turned from fleeing to threatening and the situation has changed. Now you may defend your life by use of deadly force if it is necessary.
Situation: Thief is running down the street and you make pursuit(your personall opinions about whether this is wise or not are not necessary). If, during the pursuit you are able to grab/hit/knock down the perp and they pull a gun on you, you are now, AND ONLY NOW(barring the stipulations in 9.42), well within your rights to use deadly force against the other.
^^^This is what I was trying to illustrate.
Legally this is no longer the use of deadly force to recover property. It has changed into a protection of life, even though you started the pursuit and aggrevated the situation with the use of force.
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:14 pm
by nitrogen
So legally (not talking about the intelligence of) you can give chase to recover property, and it's not considered escalating the situation? That'd be my argument. Is there case law or written law that supports that, or is this just an example?
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:25 pm
by txinvestigator
nitrogen wrote:So legally (not talking about the intelligence of) you can give chase to recover property, and it's not considered escalating the situation? That'd be my argument. Is there case law or written law that supports that, or is this just an example?
Texas Penal Code 9.41
(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
Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:37 pm
by GlockenHammer
I take comfort in knowing that my State's laws at least provide me that option should I think it appropriate. With that legal room, I can legally go part way to threaten deadly force (i.e, draw, issue commands to drop the goods, etc.) whereas in liberal states I would locked up for doing so.
I realize that the cost of shooting a fleeing robber/burgler is non-trivial both in legal fees and emotional stress (and possibly in retribution should it be a gang-banger or survive) and more than likely not worth the items I would be losing from the theft.
But it is nice to know that my state supports the victim, not the criminal.
God bless Texas!