HOUSTON, TX — A recent shootout at an apartment complex in east Houston has brought to light the potential dangers and legal implications surrounding the use of firearms to protect personal property.
On a late Wednesday night around 10:30 p.m., at an apartment complex in East Houston, a man noticed an individual attempting to break into his car. In an effort to halt the burglary, the car owner armed himself and confronted the suspect. The situation rapidly escalated as the burglar was also armed. A shootout ensued between the two, and luckily, only the burglar was shot. After being shot, the burglar fled to a nearby liquor store from where an ambulance transported him to a hospital. His condition was reported as stable. Remarkably, the car owner emerged from the incident unharmed.
As of now, there’s no indication of any charges being pressed against the car owner, although the investigation is still ongoing.
This incident underscores a crucial discussion on the decision-making and legality of employing deadly force to safeguard personal property. While the car owner in this scenario wasn’t injured, the confrontation could have easily resulted in a tragic outcome. It’s a stark reminder that confronting a suspect, especially one possibly armed, carries significant risks.
Moreover, the legality surrounding the use of deadly force to protect property varies across the United States. According to Texas Penal Code Section 9.42, an individual is justified in using deadly force to protect tangible, movable property under specific circumstances, including during nighttime thefts or burglaries, and when the individual reasonably believes such force to be immediately necessary.
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.
The law in Texas stands in contrast to many other states, where the use of deadly force to protect property isn’t generally permissible. This divergence in legal frameworks across states highlights the necessity for residents to be fully cognizant of their state’s laws concerning self-defense and property protection.
The East Houston incident is a clear warning, urging people to think about the possible consequences and legal issues before using deadly force to protect personal property.
The laws against use of deadly force to protect property gives criminals a pass in many states.
These laws condone murder on the installment plan.
Murder is taking the rest of a person’s life. Stealing or destroying property means that they have stolen the part of a person’s life that they have to spend working to replace the stolen property.
I don’t know about others but I don’t work for the fun of it, I work to purchase things that I want and enjoy.
While we can’t know how much of a person’s life has been stolen whtn they are murdered, it might be years or the person could have walked out in front of a semi 5 minutes later.
When property is stolen/destroyed we can calculate EXACTLY how much of a persn’t life has been stolen by figuring out how long a person has to work to earn the money to replace it.
Condoning theft is condoning murder on the installment plan.