Protecting your property in TX

[thatguyjosh]

Hey guys

I have a question. I am moving at the end of November and I will be without a garage for the time being but my car will always be about 7-8 feet from my bedroom window. In the state of Texas, if I look outside and see someone breaking into my car what can I do? Can I run outside with my handgun? If so, what can I do at that point? Shoot them, point it at them and tell them to leave? I'm kind of confused on the protection of property parts of the law. Thanks in advance for your help!

Josh

 

[Trip20]

Do you really want to kill someone over a car stereo, or even a car?'

Even if Texas issued a "Kill-a-Car-Theif" tag, as they do deer tags... I don't know if I'd feel good about killing someone over something replaceable.

 

[thatguyjosh]

No, I hope I never have to kill someone.

But if I look out of my bedroom window and see two males in all black breaking into my car I would like to know that by law, I can grab my handgun before running outside to try and stop them.

 

[joshua]

I'm from the People's Republik of Kalifornia, if you see someone steeling something out of your car and you ran outside with a gun, the cops will take you to jail before the thieves. Seriously. josh

 

[butch50]

The CHL class I went through was clear that you can shoot to protect your property in Texas. The example given in the class was of someone running off with your TV set. I don't know about someone vandalizing your property only.

You should not take legal advice (with potentially disastrous consequences) from someone you don't know and who has no claim to legal expertise, who could have misunderstood the training, or who might be wrong for several reasons. You should check the State carry laws for yourself.

www.Packing.org is a good place to begin.

 

[zejs1]

Do you really want to kill someone over a car stereo, or even a car?

Maybe a better question is, do you really want to get killed over a car stereo. Running out to confront a couple of hoods breaking into your car sounds like a really good way to do that.

 

[Long Path]

Yes, you can under the law use deadly force to prevent the consequences of theft.

Um, don't do that, if you can possibly avoid it, okay? It'll cost you far more than your car is worth to cap a guy trying to steal it.

 

[culcune]

I used to live in Cal., and as bad as it is now, and was 4 or 5 years back, I have never heard of anyone getting into trouble holding a suspect at gunpoint, even in Cal. You could probably even get away shooting somone under criminal law if your story was straight, but the civil law will catch up and bankrupt you before you knew what hit you. Any police officers from Cal. on the (criminal) subject?

 

[MeekAndMild]

Do you really want to kill someone over a car stereo, or even a car?

Think about this. If you make $8 per hour and clear $5 per hour after taxes it will take you 100 weeks, nearly two years of working 40 hour weeks to pay for your $20,000 car. So if someone steals the car they steal 2 years of your life. So at the end of your life when you finally die your life is effectively 2 years shorter.

Then if you consider the possiblility the same thief will steal 100 more cars in his lifetime you are actually saving someone somewhere 200 years of victims' lifetimes.

So by shooting the thief you are actually saving lives.

Of course I would never advocate shooting anyone for any reason. Just making the point that you can look at things in different ways.

 

[Trip20]

$8/hour with a $20,000 car?

Not unless your living with your parents and they gifted you $19,500 to buy it.

 

[perception]

$8/hour with a $20,000 car?

Not unless your living with your parents and they gifted you $19,500 to buy it.

Actually, I know a few people that are completely on their own making slightly less than that who have 20,000 dollar cars. It just depends on how tight a budget you want to live on.

While I personally couldn't shoot anyone robbing my car, I know what it is like to be poor. I don't have many possesions, and some of them like my car, my bike, and my pilot logbook literally represent YEARS of my life. I am on an extremely tight budget, and while the items are replaceable, insurance will not cover some things and the deductible is a significant portion of the items value when insurance does cover it.

In a situation like mine, I would not feel bad if someone shot a robber. You may say that its just a possesion and is not worth killing or being killed over, but I see circumstances where that may not be the case. To have some things taken away from you is , as meekandmild put it, effectively removing years from your life.

 

[Trip20]

To have some things taken away from you is , as meekandmild put it, effectively removing years from your life.

That would be true if one’s life, and the value of it, equates to the possessions they own or do not own.

I guess I just don’t think that way.

 

[Jeeper]

To have some things taken away from you is , as meekandmild put it, effectively removing years from your life.

If you are an idiot and don't carry car insurance that covers theft then maybe you don't need extra years on your life since they would just be filled with more stupidity. If you do have insurance then you are basically talking about potentially killing someone over your deductible. I don't think that $250-1000 is worth killing over. You also never know the situation that you might get killed yourself. Plus if you got indicted for some reason then you will more than have to sell your car to pay for your attorney.

To answer the question... You can protect property with deadily force in Texas, especially at night.

 

[MeekAndMild]

If you are an idiot and don't carry car insurance that covers theft then maybe you don't need extra years on your life since they would just be filled with more stupidity.

The car was just one example of many, which you can quibble over with ad hominum insults if you wish. But my point was the one right there on the surface and not subject to needing layers of deconstruction.

Stolen property may represent significant portion of the lives of burglery victims. Likewise property which is extorted, which is lost by fraud and other robbery. I don't condone violence but I would have a difficult time as a juror justifying putting a poor man in jail for shooting a robber; even if he had made the decision at some point to put bread on the table instead of insurance papers in the drawer.

 

[blackmind]

"To have some things taken away from you is , as meekandmild put it, effectively removing years from your life."

That would be true if one’s life, and the value of it, equates to the possessions they own or do not own.

I guess I just don’t think that way.

I feel that the above quote is absolutely a legitimate way of looking at the situation.

It does not equate the possessions to the life of the person. It simply reflects the truth that we "spend" the limited time we have to work to obtain the things that we keep to make our lives more pleasant. I exchange time spent at work for the money to go enjoy skydiving, for example. And I exchanged time spent working to get the $4000 rig I use to do it.

If I allowed some scumbag thief to steal that from me, I'd have to work a long time to be able to afford a replacement. I'd also be unable to skydive for all the time that I was without the rig waiting to accumulate the money.

I WILL NOT ALLOW A THIEF TO ROB ME OF THAT PORTION OF MY LIFE, OR TO TAKE THAT KIND OF CONTROL OVER HOW I HAVE TO SPEND PORTIONS OF MY LIFE IN ORDER TO RESUME THE SAME LEVEL OF ENJOYMENT I HAD PRIOR TO HIS THEFT.

It's a violation of my person, not just a theft of my gear. Plus, if I won't go after the thief in some way, it's a failure of principle. It's allowing that his transgression goes unpunished.

And I know people will say, "Oh, so you think a person should lose his life because he stole your parachute?" And to that I say, "Don't steal, and you won't lose your life to the person from whom you stole." And I would ask, just what is it that you think is so worthwhile about allowing the life of a scumbag thief to continue. Just what is the benefit to mankind? What's the big loss if one more lowly subhuman criminal is gone?

-blackmind

 

[butch50]

How about if the car that was being stolen from you was a classic that belonged to your Father who gave it to you in his will? Would you be willing to shoot someone in the act of stealing that? What if that car is your only transportation and without it you can't get to your job, and if you can't get to your job, they will fire you?

Shooting another person, over theft of property, can be made to sound inappropriate, and it can also be made to sound reasonable. Being able to shoot people over theft of property should have a dampening effect on theft of property, don't know if it does nor not, but if I was a thief I would move to California or some other state that does not allow it.

Each person will decide for themselves what is worth shooting for, and what is not. In Texas at least, we get to decide. Sorry about those in states that have made that choice for you beforehand.....

 

[Dennis]

ThatGuyJosh,
Let’s cut to the chase. You asked what the law is, here’s how you find it.
Search on Google for “Texas Penal Code Section 9” (but without the quotes).
Drop down to sections 9.41 through 9.44 which have to do with protecting property.

Regardless of what the law says and/or what you believe it says, you must know additional information to apply the law:
1) What was the legislative intent of the law? What did the legislators formally record as the reasoning behind the law?
2) How has this law been interpreted and applied in every court case (both criminal and civil) in the State of Texas?

If you’re lucky, you just “might” find an attorney who is sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to find this information and share it with you. (Don’t hold your breath!) However, the law is used in courts frequently so this would require research on his part for him to give you a full, accurate and up-to-date reply—facts of which could change in a single subsequent court case. Are you ready to pay him for his time?

If you use force or (worse yet) deadly force to protect property:
1) Are you willing to pay whatever is necessary for attorney fees, court costs, etc. to ensure justice (as you see it) is done?
2) After that, are you willing to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to prevent being successfully sued in CIVIL court—where the burden of proof by your accusers will be considerably less? Remember, every bit of living filth is either loved by someone or can be used by some greedy relatives to sue you to financial destitution.

(See the above paragraph “If you’re lucky…” again.)

Insurance is cheaper than legal fees; but if you decide to take some scum off the gene pool, I hope you do it in a rural county rather than ANY of the big cities in Texas (the cities are full of “progressive thinkers”) and that you are very lucky. Extremely lucky!

Just my personal opinion, friend. I’m not an attorney so I’m not qualified to give legal advice.

 

[Trip20]

What if that car is your only transportation and without it you can't get to your job, and if you can't get to your job, they will fire you?

The civil suit will break your bank more than buying a new car. A new car you'll need so you can get to work to avoid being fired by your insensitive supervisor! I'd quit that job if I were you!

Shooting another person, over theft of property, can be made to sound inappropriate, and it can also be made to sound reasonable.

That'll be useful in the courtroom during the civil suit when it’s important that its "made to sound" like a good idea.

I'm not going to get into a shoot out over my car, or the Hope diamond for that matter. I'm not going to bring a situation from non-lethal, to lethal unless I'm forced to do so - at which point it'll be over my life, not a material possession.

If you want to do barrel rolls out onto the driveway - go for it. Hope you practice that at the range.

 

[butch50]

The civil suit will break your bank more than buying a new car. A new car you'll need so you can get to work to avoid being fired by your insensitive supervisor! I'd quit that job if I were you!

All over this forum there is a stated fear that a justified pulling of the trigger will be automatically followed by a civil lawsuit, bankrupting the shooter. I have asked on several occasions where one can find accurate information about how many SD shootings have been followed by a civil suit.

To date no one has provided a source, or an objective answer. I am beginning to think that there is a paranoia about civil suits on this forum. Trip, do you have objective information on how often SD shooters are sued?

If you want to do barrel rolls out onto the driveway - go for it. Hope you practice that at the range.

Good one, I like that!

 

[Trip20]

All over this forum there is a stated fear that a justified pulling of the trigger will be automatically followed by a civil lawsuit, bankrupting the shooter. I have asked on several occasions where one can find accurate information about how many SD shootings have been followed by a civil suit.

Whoa hold the train Butch, we’re not talking about an SD shooting here… That would change my point of view entirely

Trip, do you have objective information on how often SD shooters are sued?

No, sir, I do not . I don’t peruse case info on any subject, it’s a boring read – and as stated above this thread isn’t about SD.

Police across the nation face countless civil suits due to the use of deadly force (Google it yourself ). I suppose I assume Joe Public would have to deal with the same… especially if over a material possession like Dad’s Thunderbird.

The point remains that it's not a good idea to get involved in a shoot out over anything but your life (or a loved one's life). God forbid, if things didn't go your way, you'd kick yourself in the rear while waiting in line to speak with St. Peter at the Pearly Gates.

This is all just my opinion... no sources, no proof... YMMV!