Texas Penal Code 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 (Protection of One’s Own Property); 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.
This requires that the shooter reasonably believes that he is shooting the person "to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property." It doesn't say that you can shoot trespassers to protect property. The trespasser must have been about to commit or fleeing with the property after committing those crimes listed.
And the third element is also not met. Gun guy could have called the cops, it wasn't like the guy was an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, he was just pissed. So this shooting certainly would not fall under this statute.
You should probably read the statute before forming a belief about it.
LawFag -4 points 2.5 years ago
No, you aren't.
https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.42
Texas Penal Code
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 (Protection of One’s Own Property); 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.
This requires that the shooter reasonably believes that he is shooting the person "to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property." It doesn't say that you can shoot trespassers to protect property. The trespasser must have been about to commit or fleeing with the property after committing those crimes listed.
And the third element is also not met. Gun guy could have called the cops, it wasn't like the guy was an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, he was just pissed. So this shooting certainly would not fall under this statute.
You should probably read the statute before forming a belief about it.