Legal Question about Theft

[tvc184]

The idiot is the one who gets shot stealing the beer. If I’m on the jury you’re getting nothing and will be paying the legal fees of the person you sued.

The ones stealing the beer didn’t get shot. He missed them and killed the woman in the car.

[Landrover]

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.

[emoji6].......there is always geaux fund me!!!

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[tvc184]

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.

Yes, people post this law all the time. The part that is routinely ignored is the term “reasonably believes”.

The person that used the deadly force does not get to sit in judgment of himself on that reasonable belief. A jury will determine if it was reasonable. The phrase “ Cannot be protected by other means“ might throw a wrench into the gears of that defense.

A guy is placing a check under a vehicle in order to steal the wheels. He is still several minutes away from being able to commit theft as he has to remove the lugs, then the tires, etc. Using deadly force against a person at that time, just because it’s the nighttime, might land a person with 99 years in the hoosegow.

A jury sympathetic to the shooter might say, oh well, a thug is dead. Another jury might say but that in no way was reasonable and for a set of tires, you are now facing the rest of your life in prison.

We can all read the law. A jury will sit and look at the evidence and determine what is reasonable or not, not the police or the DA or the person that did the shooting.

[tvc184]

Just wonder if she had been in the car with bank robbers and she had been shot. Would that have changed anything?

Was she the lookout? Was she the getaway driver? If so then she was part of the crime. If not....

People rightfully so love quoting chapter 9 of the Penal Code on self-defense.

However.....

Part of chapter 9 is almost always ignored in these discussions. Take a look at this section and see what you think.

>>>>> CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON.

Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person. <<<<<

It says that if you recklessly injure or kill a third-party, self-defense under chapter 9 no longer applies. You cannot injure or kill a third person and then claim self-defense even though the use of deadly force was entirely legal against the person committing the crime.

[westtexducks]

Yes, people post this law all the time. The part that is routinely ignored is the term “reasonably believes”.

The person that used the deadly force does not get to sit in judgment of himself on that reasonable belief. A jury will determine if it was reasonable. The phrase “ Cannot be protected by other means“ might throw a wrench into the gears of that defense.

A guy is placing a check under a vehicle in order to steal the wheels. He is still several minutes away from being able to commit theft as he has to remove the lugs, then the tires, etc. Using deadly force against a person at that time, just because it’s the nighttime, might land a person with 99 years in the hoosegow.

A jury sympathetic to the shooter might say, oh well, a thug is dead. Another jury might say but that in no way was reasonable and for a set of tires, you are now facing the rest of your life in prison.

We can all read the law. A jury will sit and look at the evidence and determine what is reasonable or not, not the police or the DA or the person that did the shooting.

Exactly my point, all I have to do is convince a jury that I reasonably believed that it was the proper course of action. What is nice about that phrase I put in bold is I don't have to reasonably prove out section A of that penal code, since the word "or" follows it, I just have to prove out section B if he is actively using a tire iron to take my tires off that is a weapon and would expose me to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Now I come around the corner and they drop everything and run, nope not a justified shoot.

Really my point is I am way more justified and covered by the law to actually shoot the person and will have a better legal standing than if I start just shooting at their car. People like to think that is the correct way to go about it but if your going to pull a weapon and fire it, it needs to be into a person with intent to stop an act, not the knee, tires, engine block etc...

(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.

If we would go back to the old days of stringing people up for some of these offenses or shooting them when trying to steal crap in the middle of the night like they did 100 years ago a lot of this crap would stop. Instead you legally defend your property and all we can do is start screaming hope you have a lawyer when it is a legal shoot by definition in the penal code.

[breederbuck33]

Some terrible advice on this thread. It is a terrible idea to shoot at, or even towards someone if you are not in fear for your life. You're going to spend a fortune on legal fees no matter where the bullet lands. It you KILL someone over a set of rims then you just ruined your life over a set of rims. It is very easy for internet tough guys to sit behind their keyboards and say they'd come out guns a blazin! The smart thing to do would be to call the police, get as many details as possible about the thief, and be prepared to protect yourself and your family if they decide to enter your home. I agree that it is unfortunate, but that's the reality now days.

[Quackerbox]

How many of these guys have actually sat either on the stand for a murder or sat in a jury box on one?

I've testified on several and ut ain't nothing like TV

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[manwitaplan]

Legal Question about Theft

Some terrible advice on this thread. It is a terrible idea to shoot at, or even towards someone if you are not in fear for your life. You're going to spend a fortune on legal fees no matter where the bullet lands. It you KILL someone over a set of rims then you just ruined your life over a set of rims. It is very easy for internet tough guys to sit behind their keyboards and say they'd come out guns a blazin! The smart thing to do would be to call the police, get as many details as possible about the thief, and be prepared to protect yourself and your family if they decide to enter your home. I agree that it is unfortunate, but that's the reality now days.

Do you keep the porch light off? Do you hide so they can’t see you? When they are leaving do you wave or offer a beverage? Just checking!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[M16]

The ones stealing the beer didn’t get shot. He missed them and killed the woman in the car.

True. But she was part of the gang. Therefore still an idiot.

[M16]

It is very easy for internet tough guys to sit behind their keyboards and say they'd come out guns a blazin! The smart thing to do would be to call the police, get as many details as possible about the thief

I'll call the police with a good description. It will be the grand torino with 15 bullet holes in the rear quarter panel.

[double bogey]

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

I have read some of the coverage that is sold for chl holders to protect them if they have to use lethal force. If i isnt justifiable, you are on your own. They are not going to help you if it turns into a bad shoot. So dont put all your eggs in that basket.



We always state that you should have your stuff insured, and we should. The suck part is that we even have to. What really hurts are these working guys driving their work trucks home with all their tools in them. Plumbers, a/c guys, electricians, etc. Come out in the morning and the tools and/or the truck is gone. Now, that poor working guy has to find the money to replace those tools before he can go back out and earn money to feed and house his children. And the thief is remembering that address so he can come back next year and steal them again.
I have been this guy with the empty truck, and i have zero sympathy for a thief. All of them should be shot, and i am not sure what will happen if i get put into that position.
No consequences are what have allowed these no good waste of a human life SOB's to exist in our world.
My opinion is we should have open season on them until there are no more. And as far as taking a human life, these turds dont qualify as humans, so i will not lose a moments sleep if they die. Good luck and aim straight, dont shoot your neighbors, unless they are the thieves.

[hpdrifter]

You could always press the situation and either make the run away or attack you if you are the macho type.

And, don't count on a description helping a whole lot. It didn't in my case.