-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
It should be legal to shoot-to-kill for property theft
- Thread starter beer
- Start date
Pliablemoose
Lifer
Um... it is legal for you to use deadly force to protect your property in Texas.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
+1
Way to express a 'well thought out' opinion OP. You don't have the right to act as judge and jury; you do have the right to defend yourself. It shouldn't be different.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
The way the law reads is that if your property is is the process of being stolen you can use deadly force, however, if they drop your porperty while fleeing, you're not supposed to shoot them, but if they broke your car window, etc, the property has been damaged & you can reasonably expect the grand jury (if the DA choses to present to the grand jury) to not indict you.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
And it really shouldn't be; there's too much potential for vigilante action, lying, and assorted other situations that end up with one person dead, and only the person who killed them telling their version of what happened.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
death is hardly a penalty for petty theft. do you actually value stuff more than human life? they have a name for that and it's greed, remember it's a deadly sin to boot.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
Auto theft is not a capital crime. Your life is not in danger. If you want to live in anarchy, go find a forest somewhere with no laws, and shoot whoever you want.
You should not be able to kill someone for any reason other than to protect yourself or another person from direct, imminent threat.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
Wait, someone breaks your car window, then runs, and you can STILL shoot them? Was it also in Texas that death was considered a fair penalty for rining someone's doorbell, or was that another state?
Yes, I value my material property more than a lowlife that attempts to steal it. There is no legitimate reason to be breaking into cars to steal stereos. If that is your method of procuring funds, then yes, I value my property, I value my head unit and my TI calculator and my $35 textbook that was imported from India more than their life. And I should be able to exercise that will freely.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
You have that little faith in modern forensics? Honestly, most criminals are repeat offenders & have no credibility as a witness anyway.
You guys kill me... With this kind of attitude, we'll end up a nanny state like the UK where you get put in prison for protecting your own life/property.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
Maybe I should be able to shoot jay-walkers? I mean they really piss me off, and sometimes I have to slow down my car while they cross in the middle of the block.
In fact, we should all just be able to shoot everyone, that'd be good...
uh, it is.
its best if it happens at night though.
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the 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.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 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.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
its best if it happens at night though.
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the 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.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 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.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
DainBramaged
Lifer
Me and my Louisville Slugger :heart: vigilante justice. 🙂
I don't think you should ever own a gun.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
