Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: grundle

“Missouri law states that a person can use deadly force for self-defense but not to protect one’s property.”

When I lived in Texas I went to a firearm self defense seminar held by an expert attorney to learn what you could and could not do in such situations. One of the things I learned was that it was legal to shoot to kill someone who was stealing ANYTHING on your property. Someone asked if that was the case if someone was stealing the Sunday paper off your front porch? The answer was yes. That was several decades ago so things may have changed.


68 posted on 01/19/2023 5:18:56 PM PST by Brooklyn Attitude (I went to bed on November 3rd 2020 and woke up in 1984.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Brooklyn Attitude

Trying to get away with the ‘criminal mischief at night’ in TX which I believe you’re talking about is a very, very risky thing. Depends on where you are. It’s intentionally vague so if the cops/judge/jury don’t like you, not much can be done to save you.

Much of Texas criminal law is that way.


73 posted on 01/19/2023 5:22:20 PM PST by Portnoy001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

To: Brooklyn Attitude

There are specifics and it mostly involves the time of day but it is the law, how it’s interpreted varies by scenario unfortunately

IMO it should be applicable at all times over any property

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.

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. 9.43. 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, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


100 posted on 01/19/2023 6:17:59 PM PST by Manuel OKelley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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