state code - use of deadly force

[kyle1974]

Does someone know the statute where it shows the ability of a person to use deadly force in night time hours to protect property, or against some other threat?

[Quackerbox]

Penal code chapter 9.

I believe section 42

[kyle1974]

yep, it's in there. thanks

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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


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.

[MilMan]

^ yep

[Bullseye07]

And why do you need to know this?

[kyle1974]

And why do you need to know this?

why shouldn't everyone know this?

perhaps if local police investigators would stop telling people "we're over loaded". "we don't have the resources to track down auto thefts, and garage thefts", and then loosely claim it's actually the citizen's fault because they didn't do enough to keep someone from stealing their property I wouldn't be researching the exact code.

what makes it even better is when you find this photo on the lead investigator's facebook page. wonderful attitude. apparently using stolen credit cards and ID isn't "real crime".

[gingib]

Glad I know. Anyone who breaks into my house at night is getting shot. Period end of subject

[Bullseye07]

why shouldn't everyone know this?

perhaps if local police investigators would stop telling people "we're over loaded". "we don't have the resources to track down auto thefts, and garage thefts", and then loosely claim it's actually the citizen's fault because they didn't do enough to keep someone from stealing their property I wouldn't be researching the exact code.

what makes it even better is when you find this photo on the lead investigator's facebook page. wonderful attitude. apparently using stolen credit cards and ID isn't "real crime".

Everyone should know this. I was just curious if there was an actual situation where you needed this info vs trying to educate everyone.

[JustinJ]

Make sure you understand the bold part

"(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."

If someone's stealing your TV that insurance will cover you MAY not be justified in using deadly force.

[Chew]

Good luck in a civil lawsuit if you shoot somebody stealing your bird fountain.

[kyle1974]

Everyone should know this. I was just curious if there was an actual situation where you needed this info vs trying to educate everyone.

my truck got broken and I had left my wallet in my center console. I wake up that morning and ultimately find out several other neighbors cars were broken into as well. Several of them had their garage door openers stolen.

Within a couple hours, I went to the retailers that my credit card was used at, and actually watched the guy using my credit card on their video feeds (time stamps matched up). he was with one other guy and a girl. I went to a restaurant he ate at, and the owner knew exactly who I was asking about and found the receipt. She said he came in there all the time with an older lady and girl about his age.

two days later this guy I watched on video was arrested for breaking into a house, via a stolen garage door opener in a neighborhood a couple miles from my house. He had my drivers license in his wallet when he was arrested.

after all that..I get a letter from the PD today saying that " there are not enough solvability factors for your case to warrant a follow up investigator"

the guy has a "crew", and who knows how many garage door openers are in his crew's possession. There's been a bit of an epidemic out here lately with this, but my issue is that when there are obviously no consequences, hell. why not. maybe a bullet between the eyes will tamp down the crime for a while.

as far as the text of the language, it's not about a bird feeder being stolen, it's about not knowing a criminal's intent when he's in my truck or coming into my garage in the middle of the night and I happen to walk outside at the same time.

[TX_Kevin]

Good luck in a civil lawsuit if you shoot somebody stealing your bird fountain.

My luck, I'd let 'em go and they'd use the bird fountain in the committing of a violent crime and I'd end up in a civil suit anyway.

[Ociun]

I don't think dead criminals can take you to court.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

[Mudslinger]

Make sure you understand the bold part

"(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."

If someone's stealing your TV that insurance will cover you MAY not be justified in using deadly force.

If someone is in MY HOUSE stealing anything, I firmly believe that my life may be in danger along with my wife's and if able I will take my legal right and shoot him if possible. After all, I have no idea why he broke into my house and what he will do after or before he steals anything.

[kyle1974]

with a rash of vehicle break in's, to use either the factory buttons to get in a garage, or steal a garage door opener and come back later... these people obviously are pretty brazen.