Home defense question..

[SwineAssassiN]

If I wake up and some guys are stealing my rims/tires can I shoot them? do they cover this topic in a handgun class? I plan on taking one soon.

[GatorBait]

Not a lawyer, but I believe that is covered in the castle law? I'd be interested to hear from the law experts on the GS on this as well

[zr2chevy22]

Sec. 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.

[smithnwesson]

Yes you have the rite!

[Ruark]

I would think twice about it. There's a good chance you'll be prosecuted and will be out several tens of thousands of dollars for legal expenses, plus the stigma of having killed some kid for stealing your wheels. You might lose your job, depending on where you work, and some of your friends (and your wife's friends and your kids' friends), and you'll probably be on the front page of the local paper and maybe on TV.

My CHL instructor said the question you should ask is not "can I shoot him?" but instead "am I in imminent danger of death or serious injury, such that the ONLY way I can prevent it is to use deadly force?" In that actual theft situation, you may be better off displaying the gun and giving a verbal threat.

Don't forget (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." So if you used non-deadly force to prevent the theft, it would expose you to substantial risk of death or serious injury. How big is that thief? Could you prove to a jury that killing the thief was the ONLY way to prevent the theft from occurring?

Some people think if it's dark outside and you see some kid walking off with your water sprinkler, you can whip out your Model 29 and blow his head off. I don't think so.

[zr2chevy22]

I would think twice about it. There's a good chance you'll be prosecuted and will be out several tens of thousands of dollars for legal expenses, plus the stigma of having killed some kid for stealing your wheels. You might lose your job, depending on where you work, and some of your friends (and your wife's friends and your kids' friends), and you'll probably be on the front page of the local paper and maybe on TV.

My CHL instructor said the question you should ask is not "can I shoot him?" but instead "am I in imminent danger of death or serious injury, such that the ONLY way I can prevent it is to use deadly force?" In that actual theft situation, you may be better off displaying the gun and giving a verbal threat.

Don't forget (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." So if you used non-deadly force to prevent the theft, it would expose you to substantial risk of death or serious injury. How big is that thief? Could you prove to a jury that killing the thief was the ONLY way to prevent the theft from occurring?

Some people think if it's dark outside and you see some kid walking off with your water sprinkler, you can whip out your Model 29 and blow his head off. I don't think so.

And NOW you see what Law Enforcement deals with on a daily basis. The grey area's of the law. Where it tells you you can but you better not. LOL

[tvc184]

If I wake up and some guys are stealing my rims/tires can I shoot them? do they cover this topic in a handgun class? I plan on taking one soon.

Under just your scenario of it being nighttime, no.

Forget the castle doctrine nonsense. That is a general term that has no meaning in the law. Depending on a phrase as a defense is likely a losing proposition.

Under Chapter 9 which covers most use of force issues, merely theft during the nighttime in itself is not justification for deadly force.

Some people read part of the law (mostly the parts they like) and ignore the entire section.

In 9.42 it shows when deadly force can be used to protect property only. One of those situations is "theft during the nighttime". That sounds great.... until you read the rest of section.

If you shoot someone and when the cops show up your reasoning is something like, "He was stealing at night so I shot him", you might be lining up for a murder charge. That is not what the law says.

The two biggest words in the Penal Code are "and" and "or". If it says "and" in a sentence or section, it requires all listed issues. It is says "or", it only requires any single sentence or section.

Under deadly force to protect property it says that you can use deadly force to protect property for theft in the nighttime AND you had a "reasonable belief" that:
"the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means"

OR

"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."

So we must have theft at night AND either you had no other means to stop the theft other than killing someone OR to try and do so you would run the risk of death or serious injury to yourself.

Reading that section carefully it says that there was no other way to protect the property. In other words if you could have scared the person away without him getting the property, why is deadly force necessary? It is hard to run down the roadway carrying a 100 pound wheel. That is not my question but the one the DA will be presenting and a jury might be answering.

The other reasoning that possibly allows the use of deadly force to protect that property is that to try and stop the person would expose you to a "substantial" (not just any) risk of death or serious injury. Going by a "what if" scenario, what if the guy has a tire tool in his hand and will not drop it will he continues to try and take off a wheel. Does the tire tool as a potential weapon pose a "substantial" risk of injury to you? I would tend to think so without knowing any other variables.

I could go into a bunch more what if scenarios but you can hopefully see what I am talking about. The law does not merely say that theft in the nighttime is justification for deadly force.

What is "reasonable" in a belief or action to use deadly force? The DA and if brought to a grand jury and indicted, eventually a judge or jury. You don't get to make the call. It potentially could get to trial to see if someone else thought that your actions were "reasonable" under all of the circumstances.

I think is some very rural counties in TX you might "get away" with using deadly force when it technically might not even be within the law because some good ol' boy ranchers sitting on a grand jury might be voting, "some people just need killin'". That doesn't bother me in the least but I am not sure I want to risk my future on such a situation.

Therefore, is it possible to use deadly force for theft in the nighttime? You bet.

Is theft in the nighttime by itself a justification for using deadly force? Not even close.

Reading a single sentence in the Penal Code or a catchy phrase like "castle doctrine" might lead to extremely unwanted results.

In my opinion.

[grassmaster]

well said tvc.

You have to read the whole law, not just the part in bold...

[roaddawg]

Under just your scenario of it being nighttime, no.

Forget the castle doctrine nonsense. That is a general term that has no meaning in the law. Depending on a phrase as a defense is likely a losing proposition.

Under Chapter 9 which covers most use of force issues, merely theft during the nighttime in itself is not justification for deadly force.

Some people read part of the law (mostly the parts they like) and ignore the entire section.

In 9.42 it shows when deadly force can be used to protect property only. One of those situations is "theft during the nighttime". That sounds great.... until you read the rest of section.

If you shoot someone and when the cops show up your reasoning is something like, "He was stealing at night so I shot him", you might be lining up for a murder charge. That is not what the law says.

The two biggest words in the Penal Code are "and" and "or". If it says "and" in a sentence or section, it requires all listed issues. It is says "or", it only requires any single sentence or section.

Under deadly force to protect property it says that you can use deadly force to protect property for theft in the nighttime AND you had a "reasonable belief" that:
"the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means"

OR

"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."

So we must have theft at night AND either you had no other means to stop the theft other than killing someone OR to try and do so you would run the risk of death or serious injury to yourself.

Reading that section carefully it says that there was no other way to protect the property. In other words if you could have scared the person away without him getting the property, why is deadly force necessary? It is hard to run down the roadway carrying a 100 pound wheel. That is not my question but the one the DA will be presenting and a jury might be answering.

The other reasoning that possibly allows the use of deadly force to protect that property is that to try and stop the person would expose you to a "substantial" (not just any) risk of death or serious injury. Going by a "what if" scenario, what if the guy has a tire tool in his hand and will not drop it will he continues to try and take off a wheel. Does the tire tool as a potential weapon pose a "substantial" risk of injury to you? I would tend to think so without knowing any other variables.

I could go into a bunch more what if scenarios but you can hopefully see what I am talking about. The law does not merely say that theft in the nighttime is justification for deadly force.

What is "reasonable" in a belief or action to use deadly force? The DA and if brought to a grand jury and indicted, eventually a judge or jury. You don't get to make the call. It potentially could get to trial to see if someone else thought that your actions were "reasonable" under all of the circumstances.

I think is some very rural counties in TX you might "get away" with using deadly force when it technically might not even be within the law because some good ol' boy ranchers sitting on a grand jury might be voting, "some people just need killin'". That doesn't bother me in the least but I am not sure I want to risk my future on such a situation.

Therefore, is it possible to use deadly force for theft in the nighttime? You bet.

Is theft in the nighttime by itself a justification for using deadly force? Not even close.

Reading a single sentence in the Penal Code or a catchy phrase like "castle doctrine" might lead to extremely unwanted results.

In my opinion.

You are on point here sir. I think it would be very difficult for someone to articulate the immediate use of deadly force in the scenario mentioned. Tennessee V Garner is the guiding case law for police on using deadly force but it would also be a great case for any citizen to read up on and study to understand what the US Supreme Courts standard is for using deadly force.

[cashcropper]

Can you? Yes you probably can and be justified but is it worth it? I have had my CCP for years and hate a thief worse than anything but I see it this way: You can steal from me and if I catch you I will beat you but not kill you. I have insurance for that and its just material stuff. You can threaten me and if I can get away I will try to get away. I feel that a life is just too precious for me too take even if they are in the wrong. BUT, threaten my family or break in while we sleep and You will be carried away.

[Jspradley]

One of the most important lessons I learned from John Farnam is to always act in your own best interest, especially on the topic of person al defense.

Even if it is legal, it is not in your best interest to shoot someone for stealing something stupid like tires.. It'll cost you a whole lot more to shoot someone than it will to replace tires

[Hogmauler]

Folks here are exactly right. You may escape criminal prosecution but nine times out of ten the civil suit will ruin you financially. You might even consider the insurance offered for CHL holders in case your involved in a shooting. Don't forget that your also responsible for where that round terminates (collateral damage). If you blow through someone and your round terminates in a child guess what? Wont be looking good for you homeboy.

[texas assasin]

Agreed not worth the legal fees.

[TimA]

Yes, it would be different if they were physically attacking you or a family member.

[TexasBob]

My CHL instructor added that even if you could argue that you could not protect or recover the property any other way it still isn't a good idea. Would you want to live with taking a life for tires? I know 90% of folks instantly say hell yeah I hate a thief. In reality, you don't want that on you imho. If you are going to walk that line, careful what you say to cops and neighbors after.