Quoted: In Texas
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable propert:
1)if he would be justified in using force... 2)when adn to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night time from escaping with 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 BINGO
recovering property from someone who just held a gun to your head - pretty comfortable b) will apply
|
And again, this has NEVER been successfully used as a defense, on it's own standing, as far as
I can find. So it SOUNDS good, but if you are hoping for that one statute to keep you
out of prison, you're screwed.
The prosecutors and juries always hang you with :
3) he reasonably believes that: a) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means
|
The prosecutor will parade cops and others across the witness stand and convince
the jury that it wasn't necessary.
That is the reality of this, regardless of the statutes.
The only case where this has been applied successfuly as far as I can find, it
was used with several other defenses. The particular case I read about involved
a stolen car and the fact that the victim KNEW that the car was about to be
used in a drive by, so his stopping the car theft saved someone else from a drive by.
That's the only time that statute has worked.