Originally posted by Gunslinger
The only reason I Bring all of this up is this:
I have a friend who is a repo guy in Dallas/Ftw area. This provision in this law makes it extremly difficult and dangerous to do his job at night time. If he enters somones property without permission he can be shot it has happend to him many of times
MJ I could very well be wrong i'm not a law dog BUT:
I dont beleive 2A is linked with 2B or 3 because of the OR at the end. then it would lead to conditions outlined int 9.41
A
I still think this is pretty clear though and for the 3rd time AIRHEAD i never said its ok to take shots at people who are clearly hunters
I re-read the provision and reproduced the whole thing below...more out of curiousity (I am a law dog, but not a criminal lawyer) than out of trying to argue any particular side. In any event, here's the relevant provisions:
"9.41. Protection of One's Own Property
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
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.
§ 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"
OK. So 9.41(a) and (b) give the right to use force, but notice that its says "force" and not "deadly force". So you can't shoot someone and then plead that 9.41 let you do it.
9.42 authorizes "deadly force". You can use deadly force if:
1. You would be justified in using force under 9.41; AND
2. The use of force is immediately necessary to (a) prevent commission of the crimes referred to in 9.42(2)(A) OR (b) prevent an escape referred to in 9.42(2)(B); AND
3. You reasonably believe that (a) the property cannot be protected by any other means OR (b) anything other than the use of deadly force exposes you to a substantial risk of death or injury.
If you are gonna shoot the poacher, better make sure that you meet ALL of the criteria in #1, #2 and #3 above.
