Truck broken into

[lavacarancher]

Went out yesterday to finish up a little shopping and parked in front of Academy to get my Grandson a stocking stuffer. I knew exactly where it was in the store, walked right to it and checked out. Maybe ten minutes at the most. Came out and noticed the key lock on the drivers door looked a little funny and then it hit me. I immediately looked in the console and sure enough my brand new 1911 .45 was gone. Sorry bast___s. I hope they trip and blow their balls off and bleed to death. Cop said they can pop a lock and be gone in under 30 seconds. AND the alarm didn't go off!

 

[inyati13]

Any 1911 does not come cheap. About a month ago, my neighbor came to my door and said he arrived home from work and two men were going through the guys car near my house. It was 2 am in the morning. I checked my truck and didn't see anything. But they had been close. Makes you feel violated. Just remember, cannot use lethal force in response to theft unless you or someone else is at the threat of injury or death.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Went out yesterday to finish up a little shopping and parked in front of Academy to get my Grandson a stocking stuffer. I knew exactly where it was in the store, walked right to it and checked out. Maybe ten minutes at the most. Came out and noticed the key lock on the drivers door looked a little funny and then it hit me. I immediately looked in the console and sure enough my brand new 1911 .45 was gone. Sorry bast___s. I hope they trip and blow their balls off and bleed to death. Cop said they can pop a lock and be gone in under 30 seconds. AND the alarm didn't go off!

Hate a thief and hate it even worse you had to go through the ordeal.
The only difference is my 1911 would have been on me and not in the truck.

 

[M5farm]

in Florida your vehicle is a conveyance and it is burglary which is a felony and you can use non-lethal force to stop the crime. if you attempt to stop the crime and then the perp tries to attack you then you can use deadly force.

 

[highgrit]

I keep a loaded gun in the truck barn and house. That way if I see a thief in my stuff I feel he is armed.
Sorry for your loss, and just another one that needs killing. Man I hate a thief.

 

[3waycross]

If you are an NRA member you have insurance to cover that. However you will need to have a copy of the police report to send in with the claim. Be sure and do it in a timely fashion.

 

[Anonymous]

If you are an NRA member you have insurance to cover that. However you will need to have a copy of the police report to send in with the claim. Be sure and do it in a timely fashion.

And yet another reason to join the NRA

 

[Caustic Burno]

Any 1911 does not come cheap. About a month ago, my neighbor came to my door and said he arrived home from work and two men were going through the guys car near my house. It was 2 am in the morning. I checked my truck and didn't see anything. But they had been close. Makes you feel violated. Just remember, cannot use lethal force in response to theft unless you or someone else is at the threat of injury or death.

In Texas your vehicle comes under the same law as your habitation and deadly force can be used to defend it.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending
Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.

 

[skyhightree1]

Went out yesterday to finish up a little shopping and parked in front of Academy to get my Grandson a stocking stuffer. I knew exactly where it was in the store, walked right to it and checked out. Maybe ten minutes at the most. Came out and noticed the key lock on the drivers door looked a little funny and then it hit me. I immediately looked in the console and sure enough my brand new 1911 .45 was gone. Sorry bast___s. I hope they trip and blow their balls off and bleed to death. Cop said they can pop a lock and be gone in under 30 seconds. AND the alarm didn't go off!

Lava I truly feel for you. That really sucks. I HATE a thief and think they all should have the punishment of other lands where they cut a hand off. It makes you feel violated and extremely P.O. I had a harley rake stolen off the back of my business tractor while leaving it on a job. I had insurance and they replaced it but that wasn't the point. We also today do not leave any equip we are using out in any fields overnight due to the thiefs. We also had someone still a Dept. of Transportation mower here earlier this year. I hope your insurance covers your gun and gets you a replacement quick.

 

[inyati13]

Any 1911 does not come cheap. About a month ago, my neighbor came to my door and said he arrived home from work and two men were going through the guys car near my house. It was 2 am in the morning. I checked my truck and didn't see anything. But they had been close. Makes you feel violated. Just remember, cannot use lethal force in response to theft unless you or someone else is at the threat of injury or death.

In Texas your vehicle comes under the same law as your habitation and deadly force can be used to defend it.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending
Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.

CB, I know many states are passing new laws that expand the appropriate use of lethal force but even your place of habitation has limits. For example, there was a recent case I read about where I man was convicted of manslaughter because an intruder was shot and killed and happened to be a 13 year old boy whom the court found did not pose any risk of threat to the occupants of the place of habitation. Remember even if you survive the criminal charges you can be brought up on civil charges.

Another example often used is someone who is stealing the tires off your vehicle, are those grounds for the use of leathal force.

I will admit, the recent changes by states has put me behind on these matters and I do admit there has been some broad expansions on the appropriate use of lethal force.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Again not in Texas if acquitted or no billed on the criminal you can not be sued.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Some light reading.
http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

 

[inyati13]

When I was following this, North Dakota had the broadest allowance for concealed carry and use of lethal force. In fact, there was a Church that lost a case because they wanted to deny the right to carry inside the Church but the State supreme court ruled against them. I did not personally confirm that but I remember when it was discussed.

 

[Dega Moo]

......the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;........

Wondering if "occupied" is applied to only habitation or is it to include vehicle and place of business and employment. It wouldn't make sense to say you can protect your car, business or employment when outside them but in order to protect your home you would have to be inside. I would expect this means you can protect yourself while inside your car but if you are outside the car and find someone breaking into your car, you would be on iffy ground shooting the perp dead. Given the self professed trigger happy bunch we all seem to claim we are, it might be important to know exactly what that law means if you are in Texas.

Texas law would not supercede federal law so it would be possible even if unlikely to be indicted and tried on federal charges. On the other hand I would imagine someone could find a way to file civil lawsuit outside Texas regardless of Texas state law.

Everybody just keep this in mind while you lovingly stroke your finger across the trigger of your favorite sidearm while you watch the neighbor's punk kid siphon gas out of your tank.

 

[lavacarancher]

Folks, you are not going to believe this. My Son and I were standing outside Lowe's this morning talking to a former coworker whom we had not seen in several months when a lot of commotion started taking place just inside the store. We turned around to see this young man running out of the store with a DeWalt power tool under his arm. A store employee was right on his a$$. Long story short the kid got away but this sort of behavior is getting out of hand.

On CB's statements I think he is right about the law in Texas. I just completed my CHL course and the law is still reasonable fresh in my mind. There have been some changes inTexas law within the past couple of years (I'm told) and the rules of engagement are a lot more liberal than they used to be. Used to be your life needed to be under threat before you could legally use deadly force but not so any more. Protection of property now falls under the umbrella of use of deadly force. This is not to say there may be attempts to peruse criminal or civil penalties much like the recent case in Florida. It may cost you a couple hundred thousand but you will more than likely be acquitted. Even this would not happen if the DA's office(s) had any balls and responded according to the law. By the way, the officer who filled out the police report said I should have had the gun on my hip and not in the truck. That way if I saw him breaking into the truck I needed to "drop him like a rock".

 

[Caustic Burno]

Folks, you are not going to believe this. My Son and I were standing outside Lowe's this morning talking to a former coworker whom we had not seen in several months when a lot of commotion started taking place just inside the store. We turned around to see this young man running out of the store with a DeWalt power tool under his arm. A store employee was right on his a$$. Long story short the kid got away but this sort of behavior is getting out of hand.

On CB's statements I think he is right about the law in Texas. I just completed my CHL course and the law is still reasonable fresh in my mind. There have been some changes inTexas law within the past couple of years (I'm told) and the rules of engagement are a lot more liberal than they used to be. Used to be your life needed to be under threat before you could legally use deadly force but not so any more. Protection of property now falls under the umbrella of use of deadly force. This is not to say there may be attempts to peruse criminal or civil penalties much like the recent case in Florida. It may cost you a couple hundred thousand but you will more than likely be acquitted. Even this would not happen if the DA's office(s) had any balls and responded according to the law. By the way, the officer who filled out the police report said I should have had the gun on my hip and not in the truck. That way if I saw him breaking into the truck I needed to "drop him like a rock".

You should carry this as well.
https://ccwsafe.com/

 

[greybeard]

......the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;........

Wondering if "occupied" is applied to only habitation or is it to include vehicle and place of business and employment. It wouldn't make sense to say you can protect your car, business or employment when outside them but in order to protect your home you would have to be inside. I would expect this means you can protect yourself while inside your car but if you are outside the car and find someone breaking into your car, you would be on iffy ground shooting the perp dead. Given the self professed trigger happy bunch we all seem to claim we are, it might be important to know exactly what that law means if you are in Texas.

The part that CB posted was just that which had been amended. The statutes that stood as written were not included in his post, and they apply to personal property and the defense of that property.
There is another part to Texas PenalCode that covers use of force in regards to protection of property.
http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.41.00.html

Read it all:
http://www.ksat.com/news/Texas-law-allo ... index.html
It doesn't even have to be YOUR property.

Remember Joe Horn? Pasadena Texas resident.. Joe Horn shot and killed 2 burglars as they were exiting his neighbor's UNOCCUPIED house. He was no billed by the grand jury.

Covered under http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.43.00.html

§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.42.00.html

§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

CB's post covered the most recent amendment that includes protection from civil suit.

And, filing a civil suit is one thing--finding a judge that will hear it is another, and even if they do find a judge to accept the case, there is no guarantee in Texas, that it will ever go to jury. In 2004, I was on jury duty in San Angelo, Texas--a civil case involving a non-firearms related workplace injury. The plaintiff had tried for several years to get a judge to hear his case, and just before statute of limitations ran out, he finally did-- in US District court, County of Tom Green Texas. We the jury was seated, and the case began. The plaintiff always goes first. His lawyers presented evidence and testimony for 5 days. At the end of their last witness's testimony, the judge sent us out into our little "waiting room", and in about 30 minutes the judge came in and explained what was happening. In Texas, in a civil suit, if the judge feels the plaintiff has not "proven his case" at the end of his presentation, the judge can dismiss the case without the defendant's attorneys ever having to present their side of the case--and that's exactly what happened.

 

[Dega Moo]

GB - read it all, thanks for those links. Wondering what's the experience in Texas with crime rates under these laws? You do feel violated, unsafe when someone breaks into your property and steals from you so having the legal ability to handle that situation would really help. Got to wonder what Chicago would be like after a few years with those kinds of laws?