TexasCHLforum.com

9.42 allows deadly force to stop arson *if* 9.41 justifies force. 9.41 allows force to stop another's unlawful interference with one's own property. 9.43 allows for force or deadly force to stop theft or criminal mischief against the property of another (disregarding 9.43(2) for the moment; assume the third party has not requested my protection) but not arson. (Burglary will usually involve theft, and robbery must by definition, so those two are pretty well covered.)

Am I correct in assuming, then, that I can't legally use force to stop someone from burning down a house that I haven't been asked to protect, but could use force to stop them from vandalizing it? (Also assume that I do not believe the house to be occupied, so 9.33 doesn't enter the picture, and that I reasonably believe or know that the perpetrator does not own the house or have permission to burn it.)

ttt.
Good question.
Logic says that DF could be used to prevent arson if it could be used to prevent vandalism, but the law isn't always logical. I'm curious to know the answer as well.

Someone trying to set a neighbors house on fire could be putting your own home in danger.

Also, be aware there is a distinction between incendiary fires and "arson". Arson is narrowly defined as a crime to willfully or maliciously destroy property to defraud, injure or conceal other crimes.

You can be guilty of arson for burning a crop for instance (not just structures) in order to hurt your competition, cover up the murder victim laying in the field or to claim insurance. You can even be guity of arson by burning a lawn if there exists an underlying crime or criminal intent.

That said, there are myriad scenarios wherein one can be setting a building aflame that is not arson. Even if it is not their property. Therein lies the rub, you shoot a guy for putting match to stick, especially as a vigil ante and you might just have a problem.

My neighbor has a sworn duty however, when I am away on vacation, to protect my property from all fire suppression efforts (I.E. stand in the front yard with a shotgun) until the house falls in.

Dragonfighter wrote:That said, there are myriad scenarios wherein one can be setting a building aflame that is not arson. Even if it is not their property.

PC28.02(a)(2)(D) and (E) certainly seem to disagree with you. The only required intent is to destroy or damage the property.

(b) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(1) that the fire or explosion was a part of the controlled burning of open-space land.
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2)(A) that prior to starting the fire or causing the explosion, the actor obtained a permit or other written authorization granted in accordance with a city ordinance, if any, regulating fires and explosions.

Exceptions; also under subsection (a)(2)(A) arson MAY be excluded if outside of incorporated city lands.

Pecuniary loss and actor's interest also figure in. As I said, there are myriad reasons why what has been described may not be "arson".

I would highly recommend consideration of these factors should your hypothetical become practical.

I believe that the answer is that you may use force to stop the arson of another person's building. The answer is that the definition of criminal mischief is to damage or destroy. Arson is one means of doing so. Since, you can see him trying to damage the property, then it is criminal mischeif without regard to the method.

Dragonfighter wrote:My neighbor has a sworn duty however, when I am away on vacation, to protect my property from all fire suppression efforts (I.E. stand in the front yard with a shotgun) until the house falls in.

??

Explain please

Molon_labe wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:My neighbor has a sworn duty however, when I am away on vacation, to protect my property from all fire suppression efforts (I.E. stand in the front yard with a shotgun) until the house falls in.

??

Explain please

It's a proximity joke (had to be there).

I have a piece of trash for a house and if it burns, I always have said, "let it." As an extension I have always told my neighbor (that watches the place when I am away) don't let the fire department near it until its on the ground.

The truth is, I have had a fire there and put the blasted thing out, so I guess it is not in my nature to follow through.

Dragonfighter wrote: It's a proximity joke (had to be there).

I have a piece of trash for a house and if it burns, I always have said, "let it." As an extension I have always told my neighbor (that watches the place when I am away) don't let the fire department near it until its on the ground.

The truth is, I have had a fire there and put the blasted thing out, so I guess it is not in my nature to follow through.

I have a similar plan for my wife's car... seems every time someone cuts me off in traffic or runs a red light i still dodge them... something about knowing it would be for the best and actually doing it... o well.