TexasCHLforum.com

ladromar wrote:Are things starting to get worse or is it just my perception?

Purplehood wrote:

ladromar wrote:Are things starting to get worse or is it just my perception?

No, this is status quo ever since we collectively decided to emasculate ourselves and not spank our kids.

seamusTX wrote:East Fort Worth -- On Sunday, a 65-year-old woman was the victim of a purse-snatching in a parking lot. She jumped into her car and chased and hit the thief. A crowd of people leaving a movie theater helped hold him until police arrived.
...
Purse-snatching is robbery, which is a justification for the use of deadly force.

seamusTX wrote:The use of force and deadly force is also justified to recover stolen property, with all the usual caveats.

PC §9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN 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.

PC §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.

seamusTX wrote: PC §9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN 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.

PC §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.

ClarkLZeuss wrote:The second one though, that is the one that bothers me. How are you going to prove that just reporting it to the police and having them recover it for you wasn't a viable option?

(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.

ClarkLZeuss wrote:The parts that I highlighted in red..."reasonably believes" and "any other means." Those seem kind of nebulous to me. Have those been pretty well established by now through Case Law?

seamusTX wrote:

ClarkLZeuss wrote:The parts that I highlighted in red..."reasonably believes" and "any other means." Those seem kind of nebulous to me. Have those been pretty well established by now through Case Law?

I don't have access to case law, except as it may be published on the WWW.

IMHO, this area is subjective enough that I have decided that I don't own anything movable that is worth a shooting. (When I owned horses, they would have been an exception; but I no longer do.)

We have cases like Joe Horn, who was no-billed, and cases like this one, which is going to cost the defendant tens of thousands of dollars even if he does not go to prison.

I am speaking only of property, not a threat to my person or a member of my family.

- Jim

KD5NRH wrote: I think the key is actually (B):

(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.

Remember that serious bodily injury is poorly defined, but if the guy's capable of hurting you badly, you've got a fair argument with that.