Legal Question about Theft

[westtexducks]

Once again, you might want to revisit the specific penal code reference for this,.

Maybe your reading comprehension sucks but this right here gives me legal justification in the night to light you up for trying to steal my property as long as it meets these definitions.

9.41 referenced by texas 9.42

(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.

9.42

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.

[hpdrifter]

Theft of property at night I have the legal ability to shoot them. And **** right they are getting shot trying to take my stuff. They don't want shot leave my stuff alone.

Long as the shoot is legal then not worried about a lawsuit. And at night taking my stuff. Pretty sure that is legal. Will have to post the laws when I get back to my computer.

Sent from my E6910 using Tapatalk

Legal or not, it could still cost you up to 100 times(or more) what those tires and wheels cost, not to mention your job, family strife, etc. Whether it was legal or not maybe decided by a jury. Pay your money, pull the trigger and takes your chances. A jury may find you guilty, then you have the Supreme court of Texas lawyer fees.

Then again, the local DA might not indict.

If you shot to kill and did so, they still have family that will try to sue.

If it was legal, weren't charged, then I THINK there is no civil recourse.
Not sure, maybe someone can confirm.

[double bogey]

Maybe your reading comprehension sucks but this right here gives me legal justification in the night to light you up for trying to steal my property as long as it meets these definitions.

9.41 referenced by texas 9.42

(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.

9.42

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.

I dont see anything in there protecting you from civil liability.

[Deers & Beers]

Hit him with some bird shot. He won't be back.

[SmTx]

Y'all hear about the nazi in Oklahoma? That'll be a weird one to watch.

[westtexducks]

Just FYI for everyone here you can self represent and not pay out the rear in attorney fees. And it is possible to get court costs pushed over and on to the suing party when there suit fails.

Sent from my E6910 using Tapatalk

[Greenheadless]

Maybe your reading comprehension sucks but this right here gives me legal justification in the night to light you up for trying to steal my property as long as it meets these definitions.

9.41 referenced by texas 9.42

(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.

9.42

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.

I would suggest you pay close attention to the ‘or’s’ and the ‘and’s’ in that penal code reference.

[Greenheadless]

I believe the verbiage is that if your shoot is declared self defense, the person or family cannot collect damages from you. Not sure if it says anything about protecting property. But i am half asleep, and could be wrong about the property.

It says you can use lethal force to protect property theft, if the property cannot be recovered another way. Some say insurance can replace stolen property.

...or, what if you confront the perp and they drop the property and then get shot?

......or, the perp is shot in the back fleeing with property, with no warning?

[westtexducks]

I would suggest you pay close attention to the ‘or’s’ and the ‘and’s’ in that penal code reference.

Yes I know how to read and comprehend things. What about those ands and ors don't you get where if I reasonably believe in all of those things his *** is grass and perfectly legal? It is right there in black and white? What part of that are you reading where it says not to shoot the joker?

Sent from my E6910 using Tapatalk

[powderburner]

Thought about this thread this morning. 3 pickups on my street had their tailgates stolen last night.

Thank God they left mine alone. But I feel the obvious security camera looking down the driveway with motion lights saved me

[Greenheadless]

Yes I know how to read and comprehend things. What about those ands and ors don't you get where if I reasonably believe in all of those things his *** is grass and perfectly legal? It is right there in black and white? What part of that are you reading where it says not to shoot the joker?

Sent from my E6910 using Tapatalk

Shoot’em my man. Get on with your bad self. Nothing one the penal except says you can’t. It does clearly define what is defense to legal prosecution though.

I hope you have a lawyer on retainer though.

[westtexducks]

I am honestly curious and would love to see what your reading that says I am wrong in my analysis of those penal codes?

Sent from my E6910 using Tapatalk

[hpdrifter]

I dont see anything in there protecting you from civil liability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la...Civil_Immunity

Civil Immunity
In addition, two statutes of the Texas Civil Practice And Remedies Code protect people who justifiably threaten or use deadly force. Chapter 86 prohibits a person convicted of a misdemeanor or felony from filing suit to recover any damages suffered as a result of the criminal act or any justifiable action taken by others to prevent the criminal act or to apprehend the person, including the firing of a weapon.[29] Chapter 83 of the same code states that a person who used force or deadly force against an individual that is justified under TPC Chapter 9 is immune from liability for personal injury or death of the individual against whom the force was used.[30] This does not relieve a person from liability for use of force or deadly force on someone against whom the force would not be justified, such as a bystander hit by an errant shot.
This law does not prevent a person from being sued for using deadly force. The civil court will determine if the defendant was justified under chapter 9 of the Penal Code, [I]however the civil court will be generally bound at common law by the previous determinations of a criminal court under the principles of res judicata and Stare decisis, in so far as those legal doctrines will apply to the case. [/1]

Looks like generally, if not guilty, you are civilly protected, but not absolutely.

[SabineHunter]

Dang! For those scared to defend what is theirs because of civil suits, buy the insurance I mentioned in an earlier post above and put on your big boy pants.
Good thing the lightweights here weren't at the Alamo. Lol

[hpdrifter]

I am honestly curious and would love to see what your reading that says I am wrong in my analysis of those penal codes?

Sent from my E6910 using Tapatalk

I think(again) what he means is, holler at em to stop and leave first. If they don't, then they threaten you with physical harm, things might be different.

You are required to try "other means" first.

Just my take.