Deadly Force here?

[Mikey]

Motorcycle stolen after rider struck - San Antonio Express-News

Please forgive my ignorance, as I'm new to this whole thing, but what do you all think here? Assuming the rider was a CHL, he obviously would have been justified in using deadly force when the gun was pointed at him, but what about afterward? Is it legal to shoot a perp as they are attempting to ride away on your motorcycle?

 

[Bithabus]

It could be justified if these criteria are met:

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.

 

[MR Redneck]

Motorcycle stolen after rider struck - San Antonio Express-News

Please forgive my ignorance, as I'm new to this whole thing, but what do you all think here? Assuming the rider was a CHL, he obviously would have been justified in using deadly force when the gun was pointed at him, but what about afterward? Is it legal to shoot a perp as they are attempting to ride away on your motorcycle?

I would have shot the SOB even without a chl. You dont have to have a chl while on a motor cycle.
Has anyone noticed the news doesnt do a very good job of describing criminals anymore?

 

[Mikey]

I would have shot the SOB even without a chl. You dont have to have a chl while on a motor cycle.
Has anyone noticed the news doesnt do a very good job of describing criminals anymore?

So riding a motorcycle falls under the same Motorist Protection Act as driving a car? What do you do with the gun when you get where you're going if you don't have a CHL and there's no open carry? Locking it up in the bike seems like an extremely bad idea.

Bithabus, thanks. I knew I had read that somewhere. It definitely looks like a clean shoot situation to me.

 

[Bithabus]

So riding a motorcycle falls under the same Motorist Protection Act as driving a car?

Yep.

What do you do with the gun when you get where you're going if you don't have a CHL and there's no open carry?

If the destination is a place where carry is illegal I would lock the gun in a hard bag.

Locking it up in the bike seems like an extremely bad idea.

You mean in case a criminal breaks into your bike and steal the gun? I can see that, but taking that chance beats going around unarmed IMO.

 

[Texas1911]

It's legal, it's aggravated robbery, illegal usage of deadly force, imminent threat of bodily harm, etc.

However, getting into a gun fight over a Harley ... eh. You don't know how many people are in that truck that have guns, possibly long guns, etc. The Harley more than likely was insured, it's just not worth it.

 

[txinvestigator]

Up until the point that they were fleeing with the bike DF would have been justified. Once they began to flee, DF was no longer justified.

 

[Mikey]

Up until the point that they were fleeing with the bike DF would have been justified. Once they began to flee, DF was no longer justified.

So this doesn't apply? Is it because of the "nighttime" provision? Would the bolded parts apply after dark?

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.

 

[Texas1911]

You'd have to sell that in court, and in a major city you are going to get that chance.

How much is that bike worth? 10,000, 50,000, 100,000? ... These are sums you could easily spend defending yourself in court.

Insurance is alot cheaper.

 

[txinvestigator]

So this doesn't apply? Is it because of the "nighttime" provision? Would the bolded parts apply after dark?

I tend to be very conservative on my interpretations of deadly force justification because to be wrong, when protecting property, means losing your freedom. With a license plate and a VIN I do not think (3)(A) is applicable. I could be wrong.

Are you willing to risk prison over it?

 

[Texas1911]

I tend to be very conservative on my interpretations of deadly force justification because to be wrong, when protecting property, means losing your freedom. With a license plate and a VIN I do not think (3)(A) is applicable. I could be wrong.

Are you willing to risk prison over it?

There are too many holes in that ship for any rational person to risk it in my opinion, and the people on the jury are going to be ALOT more liberally minded than me.

 

[Mikey]

I see. I was of the opinion that the bike really wasn't worth it, especially with the truck being an unknown quantity. I just saw this as an opportunity to learn a bit more about the law. Thanks for the information and the opinions.

 

[Texas1911]

I see. I was of the opinion that the bike really wasn't worth it, especially with the truck being an unknown quantity. I just saw this as an opportunity to learn a bit more about the law. Thanks for the information and the opinions.

It's interpretive, and it's up to the jury in all honesty. That could go your way or another, but here's the issues I see with the scenario.

1) I am still alive. Why on Earth would I then take a good outcome and get myself into a gun fight at range, on a rapidly moving target, and against unknown numbers of hostiles, armed with god knows what. You could waste the guy on the bike, and everyone drives off. You could miss the guy on the bike, and two of his buddies get out with a pair of AKs.

2) Even if I score a perfect headshot on the guy, my bike rolls to a pristine stop without a scratch, and his buddies book-it, then what? SAPD shows up, I plead the 5th, and off I go to the station. I get to lawyer up, at much cost, and hope that the Grand Jury no-bills me. Best case, I get nobilled and get to fight the case in civil court. Worst case, I get sent to criminal court on felony charges, where I spend more thousands upon thousands with the very good possibility that I could lose my rights forever and spend hard time in prison.

For what ... a Harley Davidson? Rest assured ... I'll take the insurance check, and go buy myself another Harley for far less than either of the above.

Not trying to be preachy, but that's more or less how I break it down. "Is it worth it?" ... that's the question you gotta ask yourself. I'd spend 30 years in prison to save the life of someone, especially my family, not that it'd really come to that, but you get the point.

 

[MR Redneck]

So this doesn't apply? Is it because of the "nighttime" provision? Would the bolded parts apply after dark?

These other guy's on here are very professional about the use of force laws. One thing I can honestly say is if the crime happened during the day, you cant shoot them after the flee the scene. Yes you could have shot them dure the attack but not while they were hauling ass.
If this happened at night, you could have shot the SOB as he took off down the road on the bike. At night you have the right to " recover" your property if you feel like you wont get it back.
On the subject of CC on a bike without a license. Yes I have done it. I actually wear the gun just like anyone would even if they had a license. The motor vehicle CC simply states " out of plain view". When your butt is on the bike seat, your in a motor vehicle. As far as me leaving the gun on the bike, no I dont do that. Then again I dont do anything more than a joy ride so it's not like im going to the mall or something. I would hate to know anyone would have to lock their gun up on a motorcyle, but thats how it is for now.

 

[espy59lc]

This situation was my biggest fear when I only had my 06 CBR600RR to drive, and I work at a bar downtown, so I would get out and and sit at stop lights and always wonder "what if".

 

[MR Redneck]

There are too many holes in that ship for any rational person to risk it in my opinion, and the people on the jury are going to be ALOT more liberally minded than me.

I told yall to read the bible! Texas property and self defense laws are Mosaic law. Under Mosaic law, during the daytime you can identify the criminal.
Such as the ti said, you can see what they look like, read the license plat numbers ect... Thus, under the law of Moses, you can report the description to the community and authorities in attempt to recover your property.
True stuff, Texas property and self defense laws are great because it's the origional law.

 

[MR Redneck]

This situation was my biggest fear when I only had my 06 CBR600RR to drive, and I work at a bar downtown, so I would get out and and sit at stop lights and always wonder "what if".

Dude! If you work in the bar, you can carry a gun while your at work. Your not as limited as you think you might be. From your home, while on your bike, and at your bar job, your legal even without a CHL. While at your bar job, you dont have to conceal it either.

 

[txinvestigator]

There can be instances when using deadly force against a person who committed aggravated robbery against is fleeing from you with your property, even in the daytime, is justified.

A motorcycle is a motor vehicle, but I am not of any case law that has determined if sitting on one qualifies as "inside of a motor vehicle". I don't think a definitive yes or no on that can be established. I know what I THINK.......

 

[txinvestigator]

In fact, simply just because you "work in a bar" does not mean "you can carry a gun while your [sic] at work".

If the premises in under your control or you supervise the operation of the bar then the carry of a handgun is permitted.

Penal Code 46.02 for "premises under your control" and 46.15 (b) for "supervise the operation of a bar"

As a word of caution, never just take anyone's word for what is lawful. Ask to be directed to the laws yourself so you will KNOW.

 

[Bithabus]

I tend to be very conservative on my interpretations of deadly force justification because to be wrong, when protecting property, means losing your freedom. With a license plate and a VIN I do not think (3)(A) is applicable. I could be wrong.

Are you willing to risk prison over it?

3B would apply.

My hesitation would be that reasonableness is not presumed when defending property, and an ordinary and prudent person might disagree with my views on the subject.