If I caught someone in the act making off with my property I would most likely blast their ass on the spot, depending on circumstance like what the property was and my perception of who the thieves are. If it looked like high school kids stealing a car stereo I probably wouldn't.
If it was the Vmax tho' I don't care if they looked like a couple of catholic nuns, they are going down!!
Most Texans don't even realize that in addition to the castle doctrine and "Stand your ground" laws regarding self defense and "fear or life"situation we have laws on the books that allow the use of deadly force to prevent a thief from "escaping" with the property they are taking.
Said law allows use of deadly force in situations deemed "hot pursuit" in which
1. They are caught in the act
2. They are escaping with the property
3. And most importantly, it is "reasonably" believed that no other means of getting the property back is available to you. Meaning if you know who they are, where the property is headed, or have information that would lead the police to the property, you couldn't use deadly force to retain it.
Their is some interpretation on my part in the above statement, but that is the crux of it....
The law isn't a new one like the castle doctrine and stand your ground laws. It has been on the books for decades, legend has it that it basically stemmed from cattle rustling offenses...I don't know if that is true or not.
The law does not come up much, as most times a "fear of life" defense plays into the scenario, is a much more "court tested" and is the dependable "go to" most often used by shooter lawyers if available. That's if charges are even brought.
The one that really stands out is the "Joe Horn of Pasadena" case. He blasted two illegals making off with property from not his, but his neighbors house...,.. He wasn't charged or arrested, even tho like the Travon case all the usual suspects staged all sorts of protests and such....
§ 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.
Section 9.42 Texas Penal Code
Deadly force to defend ones own 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. 9.43. 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.
