Lethal force question

Discussion in 'Gun Legislation' started by speed007, Aug 24, 2009.

  1. speed007

    speed007 New Member

    12
    0
    1
    Aug 24, 2009
    Texas
    If this question has been asked before I apologize ahead of time. I searched the other threads and didnt find anything that answered my question.

    Last week my car was stolen from my apartment complex. If I would have caught the guy in the process of stealing the car, could I have used lethal force to stop him? The reason I ask is because i am not sure if an apartment complex parking lot is considered "my property" or "private property." Also, I DO NOT have a CHL. Thanks for any input you can provide.
     


  2. Texas1911

    Texas1911 TGT Addict

    May 29, 2017
    Austin, TX
    Apartment complexes are private property, held by the owner of the buildings and land.

    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.

    Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.

    (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.


    I personally do not think it would be in your best interest to shoot someone over a car. You more than likely would be condemned for it in a trial.
     
  3. Hoji

    Hoji Bowling-Pin Commando

    5,846
    181
    63
    May 28, 2008
    Mustang Ridge
    Yes you could. But do you really think any auto detailer would get all of the hair and brain out of your dash? That is the only shot you have if they are in your car, head shot. The cost of your attorney will be at least as much as the value of your ride.

    Really, it is a car and that is why we have insurance.
     
  4. Texas1911

    Texas1911 TGT Addict

    May 29, 2017
    Austin, TX
    That and you aren't protected from a civil suit from the family. Odds are you would be on the losing end regardless of how the settlement goes.
     
  5. Mark F

    Mark F Member

    100
    0
    16
    Aug 21, 2008
    I would have to agree with most of the responces here. While I do know of cases where shooters got "no billed by a Grand Jury" for defending property by use of deadly force, it's an expensive ordeal.

    My policy on property is, I have insurance. Deadly Force is to protect yourself and or others from imminent bodily harm.
     
  6. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Active Member

    997
    0
    36
    Jan 9, 2009
    Round Rock
    +1 on all responses. Can you? Yes. Is it a good idea? No! If you can catch the thief after he gets the door open but before he gets in? Less mess.
     
  7. MadMo44Mag

    MadMo44Mag TGT Addict

    3,054
    0
    36
    Jan 23, 2009
    Ft.Worth
    That sum it up pretty well right there.
     
  8. navyguy

    navyguy TGT Addict

    2,973
    10
    38
    Oct 22, 2008
    DFW Keller
    The only option I would use is, MAYBE confront the thief while in the act of trying to steel the car. Weapon not drawn or visible but at the ready. I think just the fact that they got caught in the act might make them flee. If he didn't run, but rather threatened, then you'd have some justification to shoot. But I'd need to evaluate the situation, and the more I think about it, the more I think I'd just let it go and use my cell phone instead of the gun.
     
  9. speed007

    speed007 New Member

    12
    0
    1
    Aug 24, 2009
    Texas
    Thanks for the responses gents. Out of curiosity, on what grounds could the family sue me I wonder? Also, what are the chances that the "family" of some low life that likes to steal cars is going to have the know how or the resources to sue anyone?

    I agree that shooting someone over a car does not make sense. I would never do it unless I had too. If I ever catch a guy in the act I really hope he just runs away. The way I see it, it is up to him (the car thief) if he wants to live or die at that point.
     
  10. speed007

    speed007 New Member

    12
    0
    1
    Aug 24, 2009
    Texas

    Its a tough call. I would hope I could just use my cell phone also, but its going to be hard to sit there and let some degenerate take my car. My vehicle is paid for, so I don't have full coverage insurance on it. Even though my vehicle is only worth about 10K, I don't think I can just stand by and watch some jerk off take it because he wasn't "loved" or "hugged" enough.
     

Share This Page