Lethal force to defend property?

[Kyl3]

Basically, they can steal my $40,000 truck out of the driveway, and there is nothing I can do about it.

But if they try to steal the $4 bucks of car wash quarters out of the ash tray while I am setting in the $40,000 truck, the game is on!

rc

Pretty much this.

You can confront someone for stealing a truck out of the driveway, but if you do wind up shooting them, I have heard instances where you would get in legal trouble for "looking for trouble". Because it is said that the person stealing your truck out of the driveway poses no danger to you. (So I suppose it is best to call the police, or confront the thief with a non-lethal weapon if you're feeling risky).

I am not sure what orders armored truck drivers are given.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Sam nailed it.

 

[Girodin]

Sir, how does that take into account, for example, the eggshell skull doctrine?

It doesn't, they are two completely distinct doctrines that have distinct applications.

The eggshell skull doctrine is a tort doctrine. It is often called the eggshell skull plaintiff doctrine. In sum, it is the idea that if you commit a tort against a person then you take that plaintiff as you find him. If he experiences unusual harm that a normal person would not have experienced he can still recover damages for those injuries.

The objective standard in whether force in self defense is justified is not related to that really at all. The standard for self defense is whether a reasonable person in the circumstances would have believed they were in danger of an imminent batter, or life threatening imminent harm or imminent serious bodily injury. If the answer is yes then the person can use reasonable force to respond.

 

[shiftyer1]

I hope i never find myself in that position.........And God bless Texas.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Sir, how does that take into account, for example, the eggshell skull doctrine?

they are two completely distinct doctrines that have distinct applications.

Yes, they are two distinct concepts. But as Sam pointed out, application of the reasonable person test in a self defense plea includes consideration of your physical/medical circumstances of the actor. If you're a 70 year old female with a hear condition, your reasonable person is a reasonable 70 year old female with a heart condition.

 

[Girodin]

Yes as I said:

The standard for self defense is whether a reasonable person in the circumstances would have believed . . .

I stated the correct standard and did not contradict what Sam said in anyway. I merely thought I would actually answer the question asked. Instead of simply giving the standard for when use of force in self defense is justified I thought it would be helpful to simply clarify that eggshell plaintiff really has nothing to do with what we are talking about. As stated above it is a tort doctrine that relates to what damages a plaintiff can collect.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I stated the correct standard and did not contradict what Sam said in anyway. I merely thought I would actually answer the question asked....

The thrust of the member's original question, to which Sam responded, was really whether or how the reasonable person standard allowed for the actor's personal physical or medical impairments or fragilities. Your response, while technically correct, did not, in my view, clearly address that issue. So I clarified the matter.

If you have an objection to what I did, you are welcome to address it with me by PM. But there is no reason to trouble the other participants in this thread with something that is between you and me.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Folks can fish around with the Joe Horn Case all they want. The GJ NO BILLED him. The State AG voiced his appoval of the GJ no bill and Joe Horn is at home and TX is rid of 2 sorry fellows.

If the other 49 states would take TX's lead on this we would have less perps running around and property would be more respected.

Let all Perps beforewarned trying to steal property in TX is taking your very life into your hands.

 

[Girodin]

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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3WI6GBCgRw

 

[Frank Ettin]

Folks can fish around with the Joe Horn Case all they want. The GJ NO BILLED him. The State AG voiced his appoval of the GJ no bill and Joe Horn is at home and TX is rid of 2 sorry fellows....

So what if he was "no billed"? What does that have to do with the subject of this thread? The issue is why he was "no billed." The mere fact that he was doesn't help us here.

...Let all Perps beforewarned trying to steal property in TX is taking your very life into your hands...

And that shows a misunderstanding o Texas law.

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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3WI6GBCgRw

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

 

[JagerRanger]

The thrust of the member's original question, to which Sam responded, was really whether or how the reasonable person standard allowed for the actor's personal physical or medical impairments or fragilities. Your response, while technically correct, did not, in my view, clearly address that issue. So I clarified the matter.

The problem in my state are the four pillars governing the authority to use deadly force: 1.unwilling participant, 2. no lesser force suffice, 3. duty to retreat, and to claim self defense, you must use only 4. reasonable force and you must have a reasonable belief of danger. This test for reasonableness is not based on what might have happened, but what actually did happened.

So, a guy with a hip-replacement, osteoporosis, and bad ticker have to really think (and there is not time) prior to squeezing the trigger.

I'm not sure the jury is able to comprehend my situation despite all the jury instruction, after the DA had decided to charge me when 3 gang bangers attacked me and I defended myself.

We ought to have the stand-your-ground law. It would make life much more simpler.