Is it legal to defend a property of theft?

[CapnMac]

latest precedential court rulings may be.

Was a high-profile case in the late 80s early 90s in the Dallas area--but I'm not sure it affected stare decisis. Case involved a Furrier who was fed up with thefts from the store using, out on the city street, using a handgun upon the fur-wearing miscreant.

If memory serves, defense asserted 9.42 & 42 applied, and that, despite being circa thirty minutes to sundown, was "twilight" for the purposes of the law. Pretty sure that defense was not upheld in any way shape or fashion. And not at all hlped by shooting through the goods, which under the law "could not be recovered by any other means."

I believe this is the case included in the teaching materials for the LTC instructor qualification, but I could be wrong.

 

[lilguy]

Not in Illinois, that's what we have insurance for . We can not shoot an attacker who is in retreat, threat over.
Trying to jack our car in the driveway or steal our TV and heading out the door, we shoot we are in trouble.

 

[Kaybee]

I would never shoot an unarmed person over a TV set or any other dumb crap I own.

 

[JTHunter]

I would never shoot an unarmed person over a TV set or any other dumb crap I own.

What if that was a cash box with several thousand dollars in it?

 

[Kleanbore]

As previously pointed out, it is unlawful in all US jurisdictions but one to employ deadly force to defend moveable, tangible property from theft, and in that one, it is lawful to employ deadly force to defend moveable, tangible property from theft only at night, and then only when a number of circumstances exist.

Let's be clear, here. The question in the OP was about theft. It was not about the use of force to prevent robbery, burglary, or the unlawful entry of an occupied domicile or automobile. Those are classified as crimes against persons.

Broadly speaking, the use of force, including deadly force, in circumstances involving such crimes would be governed by the same laws that involve self defense per se.

The key issue would revolve around immediate necessity for prevention.

 

[BobWright]

I would never shoot an unarmed person over a TV set or any other dumb crap I own.

You have the right to protect your property. If the thief then threatens you with harm in the process of the theft, then it becomes self defense. And, yes, I'll protect my home.

Bob Wright

 

[Frank Ettin]

You have the right to protect your property. If the thief then threatens you with harm in the process of the theft, then it becomes self defense. And, yes, I'll protect my home....

That is not protecting property or your home. That is protecting yourself. There is a difference.

 

[BobWright]

That is not protecting property or your home. That is protecting yourself. There is a difference.

That was the point I was trying to make.

You do have the right to prevent someone from taking your property. If caught in the act, you may interfere with their actions. If then the miscreant turns on you, it becomes self defense.

Bob Wright

 

[Kleanbore]

You do have the right to prevent someone from taking your property. If caught in the act, you may interfere with their actions.

Yep.

If then the miscreant turns on you, it becomes self defense.

Don't bet on it.

 

[MedWheeler]

^^ Yes, it should probably read more like "If the miscreant turns on you, you may defend yourself."

The rules regarding the appropriate level of force to exact that defense would then come into play.

 

[HankB]

In a rather famous case back in 2007 a Texas man shot and killed two criminal illegal aliens burglarizing his neighbor's house under circumstances deemed controversial, but he was "no billed" by a grand jury.

If you search these forums for "Joe Horn" you'll find a LOT of discussion and MULTIPLE threads about this use of deadly force to protect property in Texas; some of the discussions got pretty heated.

 

[Frank Ettin]

In a rather famous case back in 2007 a Texas man shot and killed two criminal illegal aliens burglarizing his neighbor's house under circumstances deemed controversial, but he was "no billed" by a grand jury.

If you search these forums for "Joe Horn" you'll find a LOT of discussion and MULTIPLE threads about this use of deadly force to protect property in Texas; ...

Phooey!

The Joe Horn case was not about the defense of property.

See this post:

...

There is a video of Mr. Horn running the officer's through the events leading up to the shooting and the shooting itself. The officer was very careful to ask him,"were you in fear of you life" and Mr. Horn responded in the affirmative. Horn talks about how there were two of them and one him, implying he was afraid. He states his reason for shooting was "I thought they were going to get me." In that case much was made of the fact that one of the guys had a crow bar and came towards Mr. Horn. I would not cite that case as an example of protecting property. Horn didn't claim to shoot to protect property. It was a self defense case.

The video

Good post and a valuable insight. It shows very well by the Joe Horn case is not about using lethal force to protect property.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I always look at it this way. If the individual threatens you with a weapon or physically attacks you, you have a right to defend yourself with any means at your disposal.

Otherwise, you better let it go.

Your stuff going down your driveway isn't that important.

 

[JohnKSa]

You do have the right to prevent someone from taking your property. If caught in the act, you may interfere with their actions. If then the miscreant turns on you, it becomes self defense.

You have a certain amount of legal leeway to try to stop someone from taking your property depending on the circumstances, but if this is something you plan to do, it would be wise to consult an attorney to determine where your rights end. If you overstep your rights in this regard, you may not only be breaking the law, but your actions may actually provide justification for the other party to use deadly force in their own defense.

Contrary to popular belief, a person does not usually lose their right to self-defense simply because they are committing theft or some other non-violent crime.