Defense of property scenario: attempted car theft

[radioflyer]

I've had this particular scenario go through my head frequently but I'm curious how it might play out in a courtroom after the fact.

I'm sitting in a restaurant near a window where I can see my vehicle. I notice a a thug casing my car. He breaks a window, unlocks the door and sits inside not aren't trying to steal things out of the car but trying to steal the whole car. At this point I would most likely want to confront him at gun point, but the question is how. I would most likely demand him to get out of the car slowly with his hands in sight at all times on the ground face down until he can be restrained.

The question: would I be justified in using my weapon in this instance since there was no immediate threat of life? (I know property rights are different in other states, but i wanted to clarify for Texas since that's the only important part of the conversation)

 

[The Lox]

Just call the cops, you have car insurance for a reason and this is one of them. You don't need to confront the guy at all. You don't know if he is armed and there is no reason to get in a gunfight over some worthless possessions that are in your car...

Think smarter, not harder with this stuff man, don't out think the room...

 

[txinvestigator]

I've had this particular scenario go through my head frequently but I'm curious how it might play out in a courtroom after the fact.

I'm sitting in a restaurant near a window where I can see my vehicle. I notice a a thug casing my car. He breaks a window, unlocks the door and sits inside not aren't trying to steal things out of the car but trying to steal the whole car. At this point I would most likely want to confront him at gun point, but the question is how. I would most likely demand him to get out of the car slowly with his hands in sight at all times on the ground face down until he can be restrained.

The question: would I be justified in using my weapon in this instance since there was no immediate threat of life? (I know property rights are different in other states, but i wanted to clarify for Texas since that's the only important part of the conversation)

Deadly force is not justfied to protect property from theft during the daytime. At night to be justified you must REASONABLY BELIEVE the deadly force is IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to prevent the imminent commission of the theft, AND you must reasonable believe one of the two folling conditions exists;

1) there is no other means to protect the property

2) Using less than deadly force would expose you or another to a subatantial risk of serious bodily injury or death.


Google "Chapter 9 Texas Panal Code".

 

[SoonerGimp]

Call 911, answer the questions you are asked. Give as much detail as you can recall. Never go looking for a gun fight. LAST LINE OF DEFENSE is when you should clear leather. You have many options, but always think police first when time allows, turn tail and bail second, and only blast last.

 

[Younggun]

Doubt this is the smartest thing and may get flamed for it, but I would be willing to bet running out the door and just yelling "Hey YOU" would send them running. Of course I'm small town born and raised so I would probably recognize the guy. May be completly different in the city. Don't think drawing would be one of my considerations.

Oh yeah, and call the cops.

 

[lalonguecarabine]

This is the second thread you've given a scenario and asked for input.
Nothing wrong with that. Asking questions is how we get smarter.

Definitely call the cops! That's why they exist.
You should be confronting someone only when you've got no other option left!

 

[timf79]

PC §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.

So based on the above it would be justified to use a firearm to defend your car.
Nevertheless you will most likely run the riskmof injuring a 3rd party as these things do not happen in abondoned areas.

 

[radioflyer]

So based on the above it would be justified to use a firearm to defend your car.
Nevertheless you will most likely run the riskmof injuring a 3rd party as these things do not happen in abondoned areas.

True although, this situation could most likely be resolved without shots being fired. As the vehicle owner, you have the element of surprise and can catch the crook off-guard. The question is what to do after. I'm not sure a lot of people would know how to properly restrain a crook while keeping him at gunpoint and things would look really strange if you simply kept your gun on him until the cops arrived.

 

[codygjohnson]

Google "Chapter 9 Texas Panal Code".

All I get are Mexican honey and diaper ads...lol.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

If its not your car don't forget to write down the license plate and make/model/color to relay to police.

Justified or not, IMO, a car is not worth potentially getting shot over.

 

[txinvestigator]

So based on the above it would be justified to use a firearm to defend your car.
Nevertheless you will most likely run the riskmof injuring a 3rd party as these things do not happen in abondoned areas.

No! Nothing in that section allows the use of a firearm to protect property. See my post above and read 9.42.

 

[GaryH]

I'm not going to try to kill someone for stealing my car.

 

[ASCO12]

If you confront him, just tell him to leave yours and come and take mine. I won't even bother him and may leave the window down for him also

 

[timf79]

No! Nothing in that section allows the use of a firearm to protect property. See my post above and read 9.42.

Why should there be something about using a firearm?


It justifies theuse of force.
The next chapter notes that deadly force is authorized where force is authorized.:

PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]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:[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial](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.
[/FONT][/FONT]

So while it is perfectly fine to pull your gun, actually killing the robber could be argued.
Nevertheless some food for thought: Not everyone has full coverage. Some cars have GPS with your home in it and a garage door opener (So a robber could get to your house and easily enter it (possibly harming family at home).

 

[txinvestigator]

Why should there be something about using a firearm?


It justifies theuse of force.
The next chapter notes that deadly force is authorized where force is authorized.:


So while it is perfectly fine to pull your gun, actually killing the robber could be argued.
Nevertheless some food for thought: Not everyone has full coverage. Some cars have GPS with your home in it and a garage door opener (So a robber could get to your house and easily enter it (possibly harming family at home).

The point is, you listed 9.41 and claimed it allowed using a firearm. To 99% of people that means shooting. 9.41 does no

t allow the use of deadly force.

As you see, 9.42 allows a justiification under certain situations, and I outlined those in my first post in this thread.

And chapter 9 does not justify using either force or Deadly Force bassd on speculation of what a bag guy might do after taking your property. If he breaks into your house later, at that point chapter 9 allows you to deal with itthen.

 

[timf79]

I still disagree with you. The BG is committing robbery.
This justifies deadly force and is not related to nighttime.

 

[txinvestigator]

I still disagree with you. The BG is committing robbery.
This justifies deadly force and is not related to nighttime.

Let's be clear; in what scenario is the bad guy committing robbery?

 

[timf79]

In the scenario in which he forcefully enters my vehicle while I am sitting a few feet away in a dinner.
And I then run out and yell at the BG to leave my vehicle.

 

[txinvestigator]

In the scenario in which he forcefully enters my vehicle while I am sitting a few feet away in a dinner.
And I then run out and yell at the BG to leave my vehicle.

Yeah, that is not a robbery. It is a theft.

 

[timf79]

The force must be sufficient to effect the transfer of the property from the victim to the robber. It must amount to actual personal violence. The line between robbery and larceny from the person is not always easy to draw. For example, when a thief snatches a purse from the owner's grasp so suddenly that the owner cannot offer any resistance to the taking, the force involved is not sufficient to constitute robbery. Hence that crime would be larceny. If a struggle for the purse ensues before the thief can gain possession of it, however, there is enough force to make the taking robbery. The same is true of pick-pocketing. If the victim is unaware of the taking, no robbery has occurred and the crime is larceny. But if the victim catches the pickpocket in the act and struggles unsuccessfully to keep possession, the pickpocket's crime becomes robbery.

By me noticing the attempt to steel the car and attemptin to stop the crime in progress it bceoms a robbery if the BG does not stop.
9.41 justifies force, which in this case would be to draw a weapon (which weapon does not matter).
At the time he does not back away the intended theft becomes robbery and thereby under 9.42 authorizes deadly force.

On the flip side, if the BG stops or runs away you are not legal if you chase and eventully kill him.