Newbie Question. Please be nice to me, lol.

NguyenVanDon · Post by **NguyenVanDon** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:30 am

Me and my friend were talking, and I brought up a scenario. I want to double check with you guys to prove him wrong. Anyway, here's the story...

It's 2pm in the afternoon broad daylight and I'm walking out of a grocery store. I'm armed and have a CHL. I'm walking out of the store and I take my wallet out to double check if the cashier gave me the exact change. A random male out of nowhere ran and snatched my wallet out of my hand and started running away with it.

I told my friend you can shoot him.

He said no you can't.

Question:

Am I'm allowed to shoot the guy? or no?

glocklvr · Post by **glocklvr** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:40 am

Legaly yes you can shoot to recover property but moraly are you willing to take a human life over a few dollars. The best idea is to keep your guard up so that can't happen because nobody wins when shots get fired.

BTW welcome aboard I think you will find everybody very friendly.

Post by **carlson1** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:48 am

Welcome to the TexasCHLForum NguyenVanDon. I think you will find everyone will be kind.

Will938 · Post by **Will938** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:21 am

I think they'd throw the book at you anyway, and thats what really matters.

NguyenVanDon · Post by **NguyenVanDon** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:56 am

Thanks fellas. I'm will soon be a CHL holder. That's why I want to know if its legally to shoot the guy. And I'm putting moral aside on this case. I just want to know if you can shoot the guy legally.

Hey Will, what did you mean...they'd throw the book at you? Sorry, I'm confused...

Lucky45 · Post by **Lucky45** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:38 am

They will say that the robber was not armed, he was running away and no longer a deadly threat to you, you shot him in the back and the property could have been recovered by other means. Like calling the police and maybe following the guy at safe distance and identifying the robber.

You catch him in the act, then maybe a different story.

gregthehand · Post by **gregthehand** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:36 am

Remember you can only use deadly force to protect property that can not be replaced. I can tell you that most any prosecter, and a lot of grand jurys are not going to side with you on shooting the guy. Think about it this way. On average the legal defense, costs of lost time at work etc, amount to an average of $50,000.00 everytime you pull the trigger. Do you keep that much in you wallet?

nuparadigm · Post by **nuparadigm** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 7:08 am

Nguyen -
Welcome to the Forum!

RPBrown · Post by **RPBrown** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 7:32 am

gregthehand wrote:Remember you can only use deadly force to protect property that can not be replaced. I can tell you that most any prosecter, and a lot of grand jurys are not going to side with you on shooting the guy. Think about it this way. On average the legal defense, costs of lost time at work etc, amount to an average of $50,000.00 everytime you pull the trigger. Do you keep that much in you wallet?

I agree with Greg. Although you MAYget off, at best you will be charged and will cost you bail, several thousand dollars for defense, as well as time off from work.

By the way, welcome to the forum. I think everyone here will be kind. Thats the type of folks we have here.

HankB · Post by **HankB** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:17 am

Since it's unlikely that I'd be allowed to serve on the jury should you face either civil or criminal charges, I'd suggest you hold your fire.

kauboy · Post by **kauboy** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:56 am

Â§ 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.

Straight from the Penal Code.
If 3(a) or 3(b) are not met, you CANNOT SHOOT!!!
We don't get to pick and choose which sections of the law we want to follow.
If you shoot a fleeing suspect while he is no longer a threat to you or anyone else(threat being defined here as capable of deadly force) and he is only in possession of easily recoverable items, you will be prosecuted and spend a long time in a concrete box.

Now, conversely, if he stole your gun (because he saw a flash of it in the store, or whatever) and was fleeing with it, YES you would be completely justified in shooting him with your backup.(you do have a backup, right) This is allowed because he now meets 3(b) and is a deadly threat to society, and he has YOUR GUN. You are responsible for that gun and he may cause great harm with it. It would then be your duty to ensure that he cannot do so.

Sorry, I know crow tastes bad, but your friend was right. Your wallet is not worth taking the life of another.
I would HIGHLY advise you to read through the Texas Penal Code to ensure that you understand the law to the best of your ability. Especially the sections dealing with the use of deadly force. It WILL be used against you in court, therefore you should try to know it through and through.

EDIT: Oh yeah, Welcome to the forum

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:28 am

glocklvr wrote:Legaly yes you can shoot to recover property but moraly are you willing to take a human life over a few dollars.

gregthehand wrote:Remember you can only use deadly force to protect property that can not be replaced

kauboy wrote:Â§ 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.

Straight from the Penal Code.
If 3(a) or 3(b) are not met, you CANNOT SHOOT!!!
We don't get to pick and choose which sections of the law we want to follow.
If you shoot a fleeing suspect while he is no longer a threat to you or anyone else(threat being defined here as capable of deadly force) and he is only in possession of easily recoverable items, you will be prosecuted and spend a long time in a concrete box.

Now, conversely, if he stole your gun (because he saw a flash of it in the store, or whatever) and was fleeing with it, YES you would be completely justified in shooting him with your backup.(you do have a backup, right) This is allowed because he now meets 3(b) and is a deadly threat to society, and he has YOUR GUN. You are responsible for that gun and he may cause great harm with it. It would then be your duty to ensure that he cannot do so.

Oh boy, this scares me. Snatching your wallet from your hand is a theft.

According to the law, as kauboy pointed out, deadly force is justified to protect property when and to the degree you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent theft during the nighttime. Two o'clock in the afternoon is not nighttime.

You cannot use deadly force to prevent him from escaping with the property FOR ANY REASON as the theft did not occur during the nighttime.

So, in response to NguyenVanDon,

Am I'm allowed to shoot the guy? or no?

NO!!!

kauboy · Post by **kauboy** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:40 am

Just curious TXI, what constitutes theft as opposed to robbery? What is the difference? If theft must happen "during the nighttime" as stated in the law, what would make it an all out robbery?

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:55 am

kauboy wrote:Just curious TXI, what constitutes theft as opposed to robbery? What is the difference? If theft must happen "during the nighttime" as stated in the law, what would make it all out robbery?

A theft becomes a robbery when the offender, during the commission of the theft, intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.

The is a former Dallas area Securty Guard who is in prison today because he shot and killed a teen who was fleeing after the guard believed the teen had stolen something from a store.

BTW, theft from a person is a felony.

This is why I tell students; if you are willing to use deadly force to protect stuff, you better study the penal code some. Those listed crimes have definitions.

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:59 am

As TX stated, robbery is a combination of two other crimes. A shorthand version is robbery is theft plus assault.

Chas.