TexasCHLforum.com

Doesn't criminal mischief pretty much cover everything? That is how it was presented in my CHL class 5 years ago. In fact the exact example the instructor was using was someone spray painting graffiti on a barn or something. He basically said you order them to stop, and if they don't, deadly force is justified (at night), he then followed that up with prepare to be sued and lose. Can't remember if he was citing a case or whether he was making an example.....Anyhow, to answer the question...is anything you own worth shooting someone over? No, not for me...

I think the civil immunity passed since then.

I suspect that not many individual burglaries are solved (I can personally tell you of one that wasn't. ). I would bet that the burglars who do get caught have a long string of burglaries behind them that never get tied to them; they just finally got unlucky and got caught (or killed) for the last one.

When I took my first couple of CHL courses with Sammy Miller in San Antonio, one of the Bexar County Assistant DAs instructed the deadly force sections. We asked him about the night time burglary deadly force business, if he could give us an example of where that might justifiably be used. Of course he wouldn't commit to any specific thing in advance, but he sketched one scenario that might fit the bill (and this is as I recall it 10 years or more later):

He said suppose the case of a guy who basically works construction by the hour, is living paycheck-to-paycheck, and cannot afford insurance. If some burglar steals his tools some night, he is not just out some tools - he is out of work, maybe can't afford to buy all the new ones he needs, now can't pay rent, can't eat, etc. If he catches the burglar in the act one night, is the carpenter justified in blasting him?

AndyC wrote:I'd still want to balance legality and morality; I don't want to blast someone just because the law says "Send it" - obviously.

I still shake my head thinking about my hippie, very anti-gun housemate in Cape Town who was shrieking at me to shoot the guy who was getting away with her car-stereo

"It" depends very much on whose ox is being gored. "It" is defined as whatever your priorities/interests (ox) may be at the moment.

OCD wrote:

KFP wrote:(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

It's a rare situation where it wouldn't be reasonable to believe that. How often do the cops catch the thieves? In those rare cases, how often do they also recover all the property undamaged?

One could argue that your 2010 Corvette could be replaced by your insurance company, it would be more difficult to replace your '68 Corvette that you worked on with your dad....

I'd let my insurance company replace my car rather than potentially kill someone, but that's just my take on the situation.

AndyC wrote:I'd still want to balance legality and morality; I don't want to blast someone just because the law says "Send it" - obviously.

I still shake my head thinking about my hippie, very anti-gun housemate in Cape Town who was shrieking at me to shoot the guy who was getting away with her car-stereo

I would be hopping mad at someone stealing my stuff....but shooting them for it is a completely different story. Just because the law permits it doesn't mean I think that I could live with myself afterwards.

Weg wrote:Doesn't criminal mischief pretty much cover everything? That is how it was presented in my CHL class 5 years ago. In fact the exact example the instructor was using was someone spray painting graffiti on a barn or something. He basically said you order them to stop, and if they don't, deadly force is justified (at night), he then followed that up with prepare to be sued and lose. Can't remember if he was citing a case or whether he was making an example.....Anyhow, to answer the question...is anything you own worth shooting someone over? No, not for me...

Criminal mischief does cover a lot of behavior:

Sec. 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:

(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the tangible property of the owner;

(2) he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person; or

(3) he intentionally or knowingly makes markings, including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings, on the tangible property of the owner.

I tend to agree with most people here--just because the law says I can shoot someone for keying my car doesn't mean I'm morally justified for doing so.

Discussions like this remind me of how much misinformation there is out there. There is no civil liability in Texas for a shooting justified under law. Yet that canard is routinely thrown around both here and in CHL classes. Furthermore, it is our duty as CHL holders to know the laws that govern our conduct. Yet people constantly question whether or not it's legal to shoot someone engaged in criminal behavior that the law clearly states justifies shooting them.

Discussing the moral or tactical implications are separate issues, but we should all be clear on what the law states, shouldn't we?

baldeagle wrote:Discussions like this remind me of how much misinformation there is out there. There is no civil liability in Texas for a shooting justified under law. Yet that canard is routinely thrown around both here and in CHL classes. Furthermore, it is our duty as CHL holders to know the laws that govern our conduct. Yet people constantly question whether or not it's legal to shoot someone engaged in criminal behavior that the law clearly states justifies shooting them.

Discussing the moral or tactical implications are separate issues, but we should all be clear on what the law states, shouldn't we?

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE
CPRC CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
CPRC § 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or
deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune
from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the
defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

Excaliber wrote:Technically, breaking into a car is burglary of a vehicle:

Uh, no, it's not:

Sec. 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.

One could break into a car with intent to commit a non-theft misdemeanor, or even no other crime at all. Presumably, that would be charged as criminal mischief.

KFP wrote:One could argue that your 2010 Corvette could be replaced by your insurance company, it would be more difficult to replace your '68 Corvette that you worked on with your dad....

As has been discussed here in the past, the law says "recovered," not "replaced." There's an important difference.

Pawpaw wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Discussions like this remind me of how much misinformation there is out there. There is no civil liability in Texas for a shooting justified under law. Yet that canard is routinely thrown around both here and in CHL classes. Furthermore, it is our duty as CHL holders to know the laws that govern our conduct. Yet people constantly question whether or not it's legal to shoot someone engaged in criminal behavior that the law clearly states justifies shooting them.

Discussing the moral or tactical implications are separate issues, but we should all be clear on what the law states, shouldn't we?

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE
CPRC CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
CPRC § 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or
deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune
from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the
defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

Everybody take a deep breath and read PawPaw's snippet above. It says "...deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune..." Well, guess where that justification is rendered?

Yep, you got it - THE COURT HOUSE.

Doesn't chapter 9 cover the Castle Doctrine only? The way I understand it is that you are only immune from prosecution if you shot inside the bounds of the Castle doctrine, i.e. in your occupied home, vehicle, or place of business.