Questions about defending your property at night

[C. Harlan]

Hey y'all, I need to get some honest opinions here... Last year the GF and I went down to the coast, only to find my ice chests stolen, as well as some peoples boats vandalized. . I have a good mind to sit up and wait, as I have already been told they are doing it even more so lately, and to watch out- they are also getting into cars... My question is what are my rights, should I catch someone in the bed of my truck, stealing my coolers, rooting through my toolbox, or better yet, in my truck, despite the fact that I lock and secure everything possible. . Is it permissible to hold someone at gunpoint till proper law enforcement arrives? Do you fire a warning shot?? I need some true honest, and not opinionated answers. I am going down to the same place this weekend, and just want to get some other people's piece of mind. . Thanks!



-Chris-

 

[nickleinonen]

shot gun loaded with rocksalt... ? i don't think the law would come down on you too hard being in texas. . up here in canada, i'd get life in prison [25yrs] for that. .

 

[JoshPeters]

If you fire... no warning shots. You don't know where that bullet could end up. I'd look into your state laws. I have read Texas is a pretty easy going state.



JP

 

[Dual EE]

I know it sucks to have punks or tweakers steal your stuff, but you can't use a firearm to protect your property. Now if they are in your home, you do what needs to be done.



If you see suspicious activity call 911. Let the police or sheriff handle it. If you fire a shot and someone get killed or hurt, you will be in jail. Even if you let your dog chew on them for a bit can get you civilly sued.

 

[NVR FNSH]

Not sure if TX laws allow the use of deadly force to protect property when not on your own property - check your state laws and maybe the NRA website.



Brian

 

[AKAMAC]

You have the right (in Texas) to stop a person from stealing your property after dark with "due force". Try asking this on http://www.thehighroad.org/

If you search there you will find the State laws concerning property protection.

 

[TURBOs4LIFE]

Or try packing.org It has all the different laws for the states.

 

[RustyJC]

Applicable Texas law:

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY



§ 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, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg. , ch. 900, § 1. 01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.





§ 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.



Acts 1973, 63rd Leg. , p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg. , ch. 900, § 1. 01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.





§ 9. 43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.



A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9. 41 or 9. 42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:



(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or



(2) the actor reasonably believes that:



(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;



(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or



(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.



Acts 1973, 63rd Leg. , p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg. , ch. 900, § 1. 01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Rusty

 

[RustyJC]

Oh, and one more Section I should have added:

§ 9. 44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

The justification afforded by Sections 9. 41 and 9. 43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:



(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and



(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.



Acts 1973, 63rd Leg. , p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg. , p. 913, ch. 342, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg. , ch. 900, § 1. 01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Rusty

 

[NVR FNSH]

Rusty,

Can you post the sections defining "theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime"? I'm wondering if there are felony vs misdemeanor sections and if the use of deadly force would be allowable for a misdemeanor offense. For example, in CA there is the split between grand theft (PC 487) and petty theft (PC 488) is at $400 in most cases - firearms and computer cheaps are some of the exceptions. Also, $400 is the split between felony vs misdemeanor vandalism (same as criminal mischief?) - used to be $5000 for felony vandalism.



Brian

 

[RustyJC]

Brian,



Criminal Mischief:

§ 28. 03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF.



(a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:



(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the tangible property of the owner;



(2) he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person; or



(3) he intentionally or knowingly makes markings, including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings, on the tangible property of the owner.



(b) Except as provided by Subsections (f) and (h), an offense under this section is:



(1) a Class C misdemeanor if:



(A) the amount of pecuniary loss is less than $50; or



(B) except as provided in Subdivision (3)(A) or (3)(B), it causes substantial inconvenience to others;



(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the amount of pecuniary loss is $50 or more but less than $500;



(3) a Class A misdemeanor if:



(A) the amount of pecuniary loss is:



(i) $500 or more but less than $1,500; or

(ii) less than $1,500 and the actor causes in whole or in part impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public gas or power supply, or other public service, or causes to be diverted in whole, in part, or in any manner, including installation or removal of any device for any such purpose, any public communications or public gas or power supply; or



(B) the actor causes in whole or in part impairment or interruption of any public water supply, or causes to be diverted in whole, in part, or in any manner, including installation or removal of any device for any such purpose, any public water supply, regardless of the amount of the pecuniary loss;



(4) a state jail felony if the amount of pecuniary loss is:



(A) $1,500 or more but less than $20,000;



(B) less than $1,500, if the property damaged or destroyed is a habitation and if the damage or destruction is caused by a firearm or explosive weapon; or



(C) less than $1,500, if the property was a fence used for the production or containment of:



(i) cattle, bison, horses, sheep, swine, goats, exotic livestock, or exotic poultry; or

(ii) game animals as that term is defined by Section 63. 001, Parks and Wildlife Code;



(5) a felony of the third degree if the amount of the pecuniary loss is $20,000 or more but less than $100,000;



(6) a felony of the second degree if the amount of pecuniary loss is $100,000 or more but less than $200,000; or



(7) a felony of the first degree if the amount of pecuniary loss is $200,000 or more.



(c) For the purposes of this section, it shall be presumed that a person who is receiving the economic benefit of public communications, public water, gas, or power supply, has knowingly tampered with the tangible property of the owner if the communication or supply has been:



(1) diverted from passing through a metering device; or



(2) prevented from being correctly registered by a metering device; or



(3) activated by any device installed to obtain public communications, public water, gas, or power supply without a metering device.



(d) The terms "public communication, public transportation, public gas or power supply, or other public service" and "public water supply" shall mean, refer to, and include any such services subject to regulation by the Public Utility Commission of Texas, the Railroad Commission of Texas, or the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission or any such services enfranchised by the State of Texas or any political subdivision thereof.



(e) When more than one item of tangible property, belonging to one or more owners, is damaged, destroyed, or tampered with in violation of this section pursuant to one scheme or continuing course of conduct, the conduct may be considered as one offense, and the amounts of pecuniary loss to property resulting from the damage to, destruction of, or tampering with the property may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense.



(f) An offense under this section is a state jail felony if the damage or destruction is inflicted on a place of worship or human burial, a public monument, or a community center that provides medical, social, or educational programs and the amount of the pecuniary loss to real property or to tangible personal property is less than $20,000.



(g) In this section:



(1) "Explosive weapon" means any explosive or incendiary device that is designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting serious bodily injury, death, or substantial property damage, or for the principal purpose of causing such a loud report as to cause undue public alarm or terror, and includes:



(A) an explosive or incendiary bomb, grenade, rocket, and mine;



(B) a device designed, made, or adapted for delivering or shooting an explosive weapon; and



(C) a device designed, made, or adapted to start a fire in a time-delayed manner.



(2) "Firearm" has the meaning assigned by Section 46. 01.



(3) "Institution of higher education" has the meaning assigned by Section 61. 003, Education Code.



(h) An offense under this section is a state jail felony if the amount of the pecuniary loss to real property or to tangible personal property is $1,500 or more but less than $20,000 and the damage or destruction is inflicted on a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or institution of higher

education.



(i) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree if the property is livestock and the damage is caused by introducing bovine spongiform encephalopathy, commonly known as mad cow disease, or a disease described by Section 161. 041(a), Agriculture Code. In this subsection, "livestock" has the meaning assigned by Section 161. 001, Agriculture Code.



Acts 1973, 63rd Leg. , p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1981, 67th Leg. , p. 66, ch. 29, § 1, eff. Aug. 31, 1981; Acts 1983, 68th Leg. , p. 2917, ch. 497, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1985, 69th Leg. , ch. 352, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985; Acts 1989, 71st Leg. , ch. 559, § 1, eff. June 14, 1989; Acts 1989, 71st Leg. , ch. 1253, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1989, 71st Leg. , 1st C. S. , ch. 42, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg. , ch. 900, § 1. 01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg. , ch. 76, § 11. 280, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg. , ch. 1083, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg. , ch. 686, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg. , ch. 747, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg. , ch. 976, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg. , ch. 1280, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

This probably answers your question about financial break-points - it's still criminal mischief even if the damage is less than $50 as evidenced by (b)(1)(A). What do you think of (a)(2), (a)(3) and (b)(1)(B)???



If you still have questions, I can post the statute dealing with "theft" as well, but it's likely even longer.



Rusty

 

[NVR FNSH]

Rusty,

Thanks for posting the info. Looks like just about anything is covered under the section - not sure if that's good or bad. I'd have a hard time convincing myself deadly force was appropriate for somebody trying to steal an ice chest out of the back of my truck or if I caught somebody spray painting graffitti on my fence/side of building. I'd be legal in TX, I just don't think deadly force is an appropriate response for a property crime. Entry into an occupied dwelling OTOH is cause for a deadly force response.



Brian

 

[RustyJC]

Brian,



Much of Texas law relates back to our frontier, ranching history. As such, trespassing, cattle rustling, horse theft, etc. were looked upon quite differently and punished much more severely. With that background, Texas statutes generally favor the property owner versus the offender as is evidenced in this case.



Rusty

 

[GIT-R-DONE]

I would call the local law enforcement for the area you will be in. Some law officers view the "law" different. In other words, some may tell you to just call them and let them handle it, while others would want you to handle it yourself, and then call them. Either way you would get an idea about the attitude of the local cops on how they would want you to handle the situation, should it arise.

 

[Pawpaw]

The one big fly in the ointment is that even if you do everything right, it will still be very expensive if you kill the thief.



Texas law REQUIRES a grand jury investigation if there is a death involved. In the absolute best-case scenario (meaning the grand jury gives you a "no bill"), you can count on spending $10,000 or more in legal fees.



It costs a fortune to prove your innocence, and yes, you will have to PROVE it.



Bob

 

[SHobbs]

It was my understanding when I took my CHL class that you can use deadly force if someone is breaking into your car or stealing things but only at night in Texas. The reason being that you have no idea whether the would be robber is armed or not. My instructor gave an example that if you look outside and see an idiot trying to steal your car you can shoot him, but only at night. As far as a criminal case against you you may be ok now the civil case will bite you in the butt for sure.



I don't think it be much of a big deal if you stopped them in the act and held them till the cops showed up though.

 

[Cummnzpowr]

...

Chris, Just sick ol' Petey on them Ice Chest thieves. . In all actuality, i'd warn them to stop, if they started to run shoot them in the knee caps. . deadly force over a cooler is a bit much

 

[SHobbs]

The bad thing about shooting them in the kneecaps is that they will sue you. If you draw it you are better off ending it right there and then.

 

[ToolManTimTaylor]

The one big fly in the ointment is that even if you do everything right, it will still be very expensive if you kill the thief.



Texas law REQUIRES a grand jury investigation if there is a death involved. In the absolute best-case scenario (meaning the grand jury gives you a "no bill"), you can count on spending $10,000 or more in legal fees.



Bob

It is also just as expensive to brandish or produce a weapon without using deadly force. Even as per § 9. 42. in this case. Deadly force is something you use to "Stop" someone from either doing something (Like Texas) or from eminent harm , Justfyable "Hunting" clause (When BG advances upon your position)



What will happen and I have seen it first hand is not good. When a weapon is produced to hold or deter a POSSIBLE violent or nonviolent criminal action or activity the obvious takes place with police and both parties fall under arrest statements taken , court , fines paid etc. Soon after that you loose your CCW , and 98% of the assailents take you to court with a civil suit with a "Wreckless endangerment" type suit.



Even when you shoot to STOP, the family of the dead half of the party will automaticly draw a suit against you. In the end I suggest taking a "Handgun and the law" class or "Use of deadly force" Class in your area. One thing I learned from the class that disturbs me greatly is ... Well here is the scenereo.



If you do NOT pack every time you leave your premisis and this one particular night you are going to pick up a friend in a not so great section of town and you grab your favorite LOUD BUDDY and off you go. You arrive at your friends apartment and on the way to the door you are mugged. You shoot and kill. After all is said and done the law in many of the states (Texas being one) sees that as a "Premeditated act". I kid you not I allmost puked at my desk during class when I found this one out.



"If you whip it out ... ... Use it" A handgun , Shotgun , or cannon is a last chance at defending your life when all other fleeing attempts have been made and exhausted. Carry does not make a citizen a cop they get paid we do not, therefore we ned to get the best descriptions we can and tell the ones who get paid.

 

[SHobbs]

TMTT,



One thing I do remember from my class is that you need to make sure you have a strong criminal case. In other words you had to shoot, kill or be killed. The stronger the criminal case usually means that a civil will be thrown out. If you use it make darn sure that you had to and you are not shooting to kill you are shooting to stop the threat. Also always use hollow points they are less likely to go through your intended target and hit something or someone else.