Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Centurion2000

“Ironically what this guy did is PERFECTLY legal in Texas.”

Only if he can prove he was being driven at. Texas law says you can use force (physically confront) to prevent theft but you may only use deadly force if you have a reasonable fear of death or injury. While I think the facts of this case would make this man’s actions legal in Texas, I certainly wouldn’t want to try my luck in Travis or El Paso County.


43 posted on 07/07/2010 9:13:40 AM PDT by RightOnTheBorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: RightOnTheBorder
Texas law says you can use force (physically confront) to prevent theft but you may only use deadly force if you have a reasonable fear of death or injury

Not true. You can use deadly force to protect your property. The flip side is you remain totally liable for shot placement no matter where the bullet lands. (aka you must fix someone wall for putting a missed bullet in it)

46 posted on 07/07/2010 9:46:17 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (Three things you don't discuss in public; politics, religion, and choice of caliber.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: RightOnTheBorder
� 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.
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.

47 posted on 07/07/2010 9:57:13 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (Three things you don't discuss in public; politics, religion, and choice of caliber.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson