Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Legal Question about Theft

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    let em steal it. aint worth someone dying over. this isn't the 1800's

    Comment


      #32
      Pull the pellets out of a couple of shotgun loads. Your choice to aim with wadding or fire into the ground or air. Lol. If I were stealing shuff at night I’d crap my pants to hear a shotgun slide rack and a blast or two go off. Wadding can cause some damage to, sting like a ..... not legal advice just a possible solution that I might have heard employed and taken the report.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Tejas Wildlife View Post
        Are paint ball guns considered lethal? Would be nice to light up any thieves AND their transportation with colored dye for ease in tracking them down later!

        RiverRat1 is correct. It is sad that we have to balance protecting our property with the potential of BS lawsuits. SSS truly needs to be a viable option!
        Rule #1 don’t show up to a gun fight with your ****** in your hand

        Comment


          #34
          I think you can shoot day or night(Joe Horn comes to mind), but the expenses that come with that will suck. The Castle doctrine in Texas says they can not sue you in civil court for the death I believe. But hiring a lawyer to clear your name is expensive.

          Texas Castle Doctrine,
          Texas Castle Bill or Texas Castle Law
          Read about the Law and Guns and how to kill someone in Texas.

          AN ACT
          relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

          BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

          SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

          (4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

          (5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

          SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

          (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

          (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

          (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

          (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

          (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

          (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

          (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

          (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

          (f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

          SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

          Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

          (1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

          (2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

          [(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

          (A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

          (B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

          (b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

          (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

          (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

          (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

          (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

          (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

          (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

          (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

          (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

          SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

          Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

          SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

          (b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

          SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
          Last edited by kurt68; 06-25-2020, 10:58 AM.

          Comment


            #35
            [QUOTE=Tejas Wildlife;14941985]Are paint ball guns considered lethal? Would be nice to light up any thieves AND their transportation with colored dye for ease in tracking them down later!

            I like this idea....I can open my side gate and start lighting them up. My house gives me cover if they shoot back and ill obviously have a real gun as well.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by SHSU18 View Post
              Even more reason for them to hurt me lol
              ya I didn't think that one all the way thru. Scratch that idea lol

              Comment


                #37
                Shoot their tires out! Or if you have a high cal pistol their engine block.

                Comment


                  #38
                  About the best you could do is have cameras setup everywhere in case they hit you one night. Place signs in your yard and on your house that cameras are present, even if they’re not.


                  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                  Comment


                    #39
                    To me it is not worth taking a life over car rims. now I know you asked the legality of pulling the trigger and as far as I understand Castle Doctrine would apply here.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      True story...A guy noticed that his "spinners" were being stolen. He went out and shot the guy. He emptied the magazine. He went back in to reload and came back out to finish up the job. The shooter wound up in court and eventually TDC.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Rim's?[emoji15] Nope......court and legal fees will destroy you. Not including sitting in prison with their cousins.[emoji848] Protect your family and self ......stuff is replaced easy enough......but your family needs u more!

                        Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Toss a few of these out of the front door..........problem solved.
                          Attached Files

                          Comment


                            #43
                            IF I was of the mind set to stand back and allow someone to steal my stuff I'd move to a safer area.. im not sure deadly force would be the move unless i felt my life was threatened. However the scumbag would know he picked the wrong place ..

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Save yourself the legal trouble and get a Ford since they only want those Chevy rims.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                I caught a guy in college who burglarized a house we were renting. The dude who robbed us was an idiot. He tried to sell our stuff back to us. So we went with it.. i had a buddy who owned a shop a bike store to be exact. So the theif brings our stuff up to my buddies shop. My buddy who owned the place walks out sees the guy, says theyre in the back waiting for u. My buddy leaves his shop walks out the door locks it behind him. Me and my 2 roommates walk out all pistols in hand. Long story short the theif left w no teeth and begging for his life. He left town a few days later. Good times. That was 18yrs ago now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X