Reckless endangerment?

[TXlib]

Car Theft Ends In Chase, Shootout, Crash
Suspected Thief Shot In Face

POSTED: 8:42 a.m. CDT August 12, 2003
UPDATED: 8:46 a.m. CDT August 12, 2003

HOUSTON -- A driver who saw his car being stolen shot at the thieves and chased them until a shootout caused an accident early Tuesday, officials told News2Houston.

The crime spree happened in northwest Harris County on Highway 249 at Houston-Rosslyn Road around 2:30 a.m.

Detectives said a man saw two men trying to steal his car at his apartment complex.

"He exited his apartment, and fired twice at the suspects as they were stealing his vehicle. Then, (he) gained a weapon and went back to his other vehicle and pursued the suspects in his vehicle," said Sgt. Dennis Brown, with the Harris County Sheriff's Department.

The chase lasted approximately three miles until a shootout broke out.

"He stated that he was shot at as he chased his stolen car and he returned fire with his weapon, striking one of the suspects," Brown said.

One of the suspects was shot in the face, causing him to wreck the stolen car and go to a nearby restaurant for help, officials said. He was taken to Ben Taub Hospital, where he is listed in critical condition.

The other suspectturned himself in about two hours later; approximately the same time detectives found a gun between the two crime scenes, according to authorities.

No one else was injured.

There's no word yet on which charges the car thieves could face. The owner of the stolen car will not be charged, according to authorities.

---

Should the owner of the stolen car face reckless endangerment charges? I don't want people chasing criminals down the street and engaging in shootouts.

Issue #1: Shooting at the suspects in the parking lot
Presumably he didn't hit them at this time. Where did his stray bullets go? Did he give a moments' thought to how he might be putting innocents at risk? It may well have been the case that, due to the angles involved, any misses would safely bury themselves into the ground. But he may well also have been firing in the direction of other cars and apartments, creating significant risk of hitting somebody other than the intended target. In the absence of a case for self-defence, this strikes me as reckless.

Issue #2: Giving chase to the suspects
This is a job for the police. He had to know they knew he was there, and that a high-speed chase would result, and possible violence. He wasn't trained for this kind of thing. I certainly understand the desire to give chase, and call police on a cell phone and give current location, etc. But the risk of accident, injury, and death in such a chase is high, and greater still if you are not trained to do so. I personally would have done no more than call the police, giving a description of my stolen vehicle and the perps.

Issue #3: Engaging in a high-speed shootout
Yes, he was fired upon first. Rather than return fire, he should have ended his chase and allowed police to do their job. If firing at the suspects in the parking lot was reckless, this was even more so, even at 2:30 am. That he actually hit one of the suspects is nothing less than staggering coincidence. The bullets were more likely to find other targets.

Now, I'm not saying the car owner should face jail time for this. But it should be a matter for a jury to decide. I don't want to encourage other yahoos to take the law into their own hands, and andanger me and my family in the process. This is why we have police!

Should he have been charged with reckless endangerment, or anything else? If not, I'd like to hear a good counter-argument.

[Superfly]

1. He was wrong on all three counts

1) Shooting should only be one in defense. Shooting at a fleeing felon is a job for the police. He should have pulled out his gun, gotten out his cell phone, and made the call from a covered and concealed defensive position, informing the police dispatcher:

a) The nature of the crime that was just committed.
b) His location and his medical status.
c) The fact that he has a drawn weapon and is in a hiding spot.

2) Giving chase is a job for the police. He should have:

a) Adequate insurance so that if his property is not recovered, he can file a claim for remuneration.
b) Taken a description of the suspects.

3) Shooting at somebody who is no longer a threat is dangerous.

[greenwow]

2. You forgot an issue

Issue #0: A gun in public
He had a gun in public. It was even loaded! That in and of itself is reckless endangerment.

[TXlib]

5. I disagree

Assuming the handgun was legally owned, he was in a situation where self-defence was a real possibility.

I'm willing to forgive him on that point.

I don't oppose handguns absolutely. I just think those who own them need to be as mindful of their responsibilities as of their rights.

[bowens43]

8. self defense?

he CHASED the guys. He wasn't defending himself, he was trying to punish someone for stealing his car. He should be charged for attempted murder not reckless endangerment.

[TXlib]

9. You misunderstood my point

If I owned a gun, and I saw people engaging in suspicious activities on my property, I wouldn't go out to investigate unless I were armed, just in case.

So, for merely POSSESSING a loaded handgun, assuming he had the proper permits, I didn't consider that an issue.

Shooting at fleeing suspects, yes, I agree with you. It wasn't a case for self-defence, or at least the article didn't give any circumstances that would suggest it would be.

[Cthulu_2004]

26. The statement by the police shows some ambiguity...

"He exited his apartment, and fired twice at the suspects as they were stealing his vehicle. Then, (he) gained a weapon and went back to his other vehicle and pursued the suspects in his vehicle," said Sgt. Dennis Brown, with the Harris County Sheriff's Department."

Did he fire twice at the suspects as they stole his car? That's what it says, right? Then why would he need to go inside to "gain a weapon"? It's hard to shoot at somebody if you're unarmed.

BTW, Texas law provides that it's legal to shoot to protect certain property, like an automobile. Hence his actions were legal.

[BiggJawn]

36. You can shoot at car thieves in Texas???

Man.....Do they HANG car thieves, like they did horse thieves?

Here in Indiana, the guy who's car was stolen would be sweating out the next meeting of the Grand Jury, possibly to be indicted for recklessness, illegal discharge of a firearm, endangerment, and possibly attempted murder....

[TXlib]

45. Apparently so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=88389&mesg_id=88695&page=

[Cthulu_2004]

25. How is trying to stop a theif punishing somebody?

He shot at them ONLY after they shot at him. That makes it self-defense.

[Cthulu_2004]

24. so....

police officers all recklessly endanger people? After all, they carry loaded guns in public.....

[rjbcar27]

3. Fair play to the bloke.

Were handguns legal here in the UK and it happened to me, I'd have probably done the same thing. They would have had to be damn good to outrun me anyway!

[Romulus]

46. cheers

:toast:

you really from the UK? Your compadres on DU and their Canadian sister will disown you for agreeing with "uncivilized USAmericans," or whatever they are calling us today.

[GOPisEvil]

4. I believe he should face some sort of charge...

..however, Texas has a law about defending your property at night, with deadly force. So, in terms of a crime against the car thieves, there might be problems with comvicting him. A similar case in San Antonio a few years ago resulted in no charges filed against a man who killed someone trying to steal his car at night. Apparently, that is a justifiable homicide according to TX law. :eyes:

Now, did he create a danger to the general public by his actions? Yep.

[SOteric]

6. In this state,

the 'victim' would definitely face charges for his gunfire and for chasing the theives at high speeds. We inacted legislation a few years ago when 3 high-profile cases involving car chases came up. (One involved a high speed car chase by the police themselves and they've had to change the specifics of how they pursue criminals because of it).

In the state of Texas...:shrug:

[TXlib]

7. Yes, but what if one of his stray bullets had hit somebody else?

Would he have faced charges then?

Edit: Can you provide more detail, or a link, regarding the Texas nightime lethal force for protection of property law?

[Pegleg Thd]

11. If the Houston cops

are as cowardly and inept as those in Muskogee Oklahoma he had no other choice but to do as he did. We have a problem here with some who like to use our back yard as a place to hide from the cops. I have had to go to what passes for an internal affairs director to get this stopped. The song and dance I get is that nothing can be done. For our own protection I am now always armed on my own property and have informed both the "gestapo" impersonators and the local druggests who hide from them that I will shoot anyone hiding on my property.
One of the big problems here is that some of the 'cops' are related to the crooks and they won't go against their own.
If we were in better health and financially able we would sell out and relocate. Since I had a heart attack in June and may be looking at heart surgery in a few months and my wife is a diabetic and our doctors are just 60 blocks away we are stuck for now.
The local politicians say that 'most of the cause' is coming from the "bushit tax cuts and 'compassionate conservative' programs". No matter what happens until we get the crooks out of the white house we won't be able to get those off the streets!!

[GOPisEvil]

15. Here's the statutes...

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe0000900.html#pe013.9.41

Read sections 9.41 and 9.42. The key phrase is "reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary."

[TXlib]

16. Wow, that's pretty wide open.

There's an awful lot of ways you can legally get shot in Texas.

[GOPisEvil]

17. Did you read this though? "Reckless Injury of Innocent Third Person"

§ 9.05. Reckless Injury of Innocent Third Person



Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

[TXlib]

20. So you escape prosecution if you're lucky.

But until you kill or injure somebody else, you can be as reckless as you like.

How purely libertarian...

[Cthulu_2004]

28. I think they use a slightly different definition of "reckless"...

aiming and shooting at a criminal when it's within your rights to do so isn't reckless, even if you hit a third party. Now, if you had a machinegun and just sprayed it everywhere and HOPED you might hit the criminal, THAT would be reckless.

[GOPisEvil]

29. Well, "reckless" is open to interpretation...

...that's why districts attorney are local officials, so they can better represent the population of that area. Reckless to a rural rancher and reckless to an urban CPA are often two completely different things.

[lastliberalintexas]

39. Wrong

Even Texas law allows for the prosecution of an individual who kills or injures an innocent 3d party in their pursuit of an alleged criminal. I think it's Penal Code Section 9.05 maybe? The fact that you were acting in self defense (if TRULY in self defense and not once tou become the aggressor) is not a bar to such a prosecution if you acted recklessly in pursuit of that criminal.

[Cthulu_2004]

52. Do you have any caselaw?

where reckless is defined in practice and in this context?

[lastliberalintexas]

19. Not really

You have to look at the exact wording of the statute, and the words AND and OR have very intentional consequences in statutory construction.

§ 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.

One can not use deadly force against another ONLY because that person has committed an offense. The other elements must be met as well. And the case law interpreting these statutes has construed them fairly narrowly.

Also, in the article that you posted, the individual should be charged with assault at the very least. Once the robber fled and he gave pursuit, he became the agressor, such that the robber actually became the party for whom self defense would be an option. People do not realize that self defense arguments do have their limits and do not cover EVERY action taken after a threat is made by another. Once you are in reasonable safety (as in this example when the robber leaves your presence), any action taken by you is not deemed to be in self defense.

Prosecutors usually have a great deal of discretion, and may choose not to seek an indictment in a case. Or the grand jury may no bill or the jury may acquit (jury nullification). But that doesn't necessarily mean the decision comports with the law.

[TXlib]

21. So, if I understand correctly...

Jim breaks into Bob's house in the middle of the night and steals some stuff.

Jim flees, and Bob pursues. Bob starts firing shots at Jim. Jim, fearing for his life returns fire, killing Bob.

Was Jim justifiably practicing self-defence?

The penalty for stealing is not death. When Bob started firing at Jim, Jim had a right to defend himself.

Wouldn't a prosecutor normally take into consideration the fact that Jim precipitated the incident by breaking into Bob's house and stealing his stuff to begin with, and that none of this would have happened otherwise?

[lastliberalintexas]

22. Yes, b/c Bob became the aggressor

Self defense is only a defense to IMMINENT danger. Once Jim was fleeing from the scene of the crime such that Bob (and his family) were no longer in imminent danger, the appropriate action was for him to call the police. Not to turn into Dirty Harry and chase the robber into the streets and gun him down in some sort of vigilante justice killing.

But yes, prosecutors are also human (and political animals), and they might still try to charge Jim with something more than just the robbery. Felony muder laws may be used to cover just this situation, although that should really only apply if Jim shot Bob BEFORE Bob became the aggressor (as in surprised him in the middle of the break-in and Jim shot him in his own living room). Again, prosecutors often have a great deal of discretion.

on edit- It is important to note as well that the force that you are allowed to respond with should be equivalent to what you are threatened with. It is not self defense to shoot someone after s/he threatens you and hits you with a tennis ball. The person who threw the tennis ball did commit an assult, but not one that justified a DEADLY force response.

[TXlib]

23. Although it LOGICALLY seems fair

that Jim should have the right to defend himself after Bob opens fire, I suspect the community would be outraged if Jim were not charged with Bob's death in some way, since it wouldn't have happened at all if Jim had not robbed Bob's house. I would think, at a minimum, that some sort of negligent homicide charge would be applied (i.e. -- Since Jim was packing heat, he KNEW he was putting himself into a situation where he might be required to shoot at somebody, and that somebody's death was a possible outcome of breaking into Bob's house.)

[Spoonman]

35. You would have to begin by looking at

the criminal act committed by Jim in a different light.
If Jim broke into Bob’s house while carrying a firearm, it is now armed robbery.

"Was Jim justifiably practicing self-defence?"

Being an armed robbery the law judicial system views it as Jim had every intent to use that gun for the robbery regardless of the circumstances

"The penalty for stealing is not death. When Bob started firing at Jim, Jim had a right to defend himself."

Your correct, but the self defense laws here in Texas apply to both a person and a persons property, and are not classified as a "punishment".
Jim would not have, armed or not, have any claim to “self defense” under Texas Law, due to the felony act of “force” he committed by breaking into Bob’s house, and being in unlawful possession of Bob’s property.

“Wouldn't a prosecutor normally take into consideration the fact that Jim precipitated the incident by breaking into Bob's house and stealing his stuff to begin with, and that none of this would have happened otherwise?”

The answer to that is; the prosecutor would have no choice but to file murder charges on Jim.
Because it was an armed robbery, the only choice the prosecutor would face would be whether to seek first-degree murder or second-degree murder charges

[Cthulu_2004]

30. Not really....

"Also, in the article that you posted, the individual should be charged with assault at the very least. Once the robber fled and he gave pursuit, he became the agressor, such that the robber actually became the party for whom self defense would be an option. People do not realize that self defense arguments do have their limits and do not cover EVERY action taken after a threat is made by another. Once you are in reasonable safety (as in this example when the robber leaves your presence), any action taken by you is not deemed to be in self defense."

Once somebody steals your property, you're legally entitled to recover it, even if it means chasing them. Another example is if somebody steals something that belongs to you, puts it in their house, and you break in to get it back. While you've broken and entered into their house, it's for a legally justifiable purpose, and you have a right to do it.

In this case, he was chasing them to recover his property, they shot at him, so he was legally allowed to shoot back.

[TXlib]

32. Ummm...

Another example is if somebody steals something that belongs to you, puts it in their house, and you break in to get it back. While you've broken and entered into their house, it's for a legally justifiable purpose, and you have a right to do it.

You're going to have to back that assertion up with a link to legal code that states that is justified, or a judicial precedent.

I can't imagine it's EVER legal to break and enter, unless it's a matter of life or death.

If you know where your property is, you should call the police. It is their job to execute search warrants and apprehend criminals, not yours.

Your interpretation gives justification to vigilante justice. I would prefer that law enforcement to performed by trained officers, not eager yahoos. (Not to say that law officers can't be eager yahoos, but at least they're TRAINED eager yahoos! :) )

[Spoonman]

37. Your correct

"If you know where your property is, you should call the police. It is their job to execute search warrants and apprehend criminals, not yours."

That is exactly what you must do, you must also be able to prove the property is yours!

If you enter that house your will be charged with burglary of a habitation, retrieving property that belongs to you is irrelevant under TX law.

[Cthulu_2004]

53. No, it's not. Read the statute.

"§ 30.02. Burglary
(a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or..."

The statute has a mens rea element. When you enter the building, you must intend to commit a theft. How can you steal property that belongs to you in the first place?

Look at:

"§ 31.10. Actor's Interest in Property
It is no defense to prosecution under this chapter that the actor has an interest in the property or service stolen if another person has the right of exclusive possession of the property."

If you have an interest in the property, but the other person has exclusive possession, it's not a defense. Now apply that to our situation. The person who has the stolen property does NOT have a right of exclusive possession.

[Cthulu_2004]

50. you need to look at the definitions...

From §18.2-92 of the Code of Virginia:

"If any person break and enter a dwelling house while said dwelling is occupied, either in the day or nighttime, with the intent to commit any misdemeanor except assault and battery or trespass,"


Notice the "intent to commit any misdemeanor" language. Here, at least, if you're trying to recover property that you have a claim of right to, statutorily it doesn't qualify as breaking and entering. Your purpose (mens rea) isn't to commit ANY crime, it's to recover what rightfully belongs to you. This is the same kind of thing that allows bail bondsmen to kick in the doors of people's houses where they think a fugitive is. They may be held liable for any damage they cause going in, but they are not criminally liable.

Think about it...and try this example on for size. Say you've parked your car in a paid parking lot. While going out and paying the attendant, you get into an argument, and he orders you off the property. He's in effect keeping you from getting your property back. If your property wasn't there, and you went back on the lot, you'd be trespassing. If you go there to recover your car, technically under the statute it's a class 1 misdemeanor. However, you have a legal justification to do so, in that you're there to recover your personal property. your purpose wasn't to trespass, it was strictly to recover your personal property.

Same deal with breaking into a house if you're freezing to death. Legally, you've broken into the house, but your reason to do it was one of necessity, which is a defense.

[TXlib]

55. I still stand by my original proposition

If you have reason to believe somebody is harboring property stolen from you, you should notify the police, and let them handle it.

Why would you take such a matter into your own hands?

On Edit:

I agree mens rea is justification for breaking into a house to escape the cold if you're freezing to death.

Regarding the parking lot issue, I think it would be more advisable to find a police officer to assist in retrieving your vehicle; it at least guarantees no escalation of hostilities from the attendant.

I just can't imagine that breaking into somebody else's home, even to recover property you KNOW was stolen from you, is permissible. That is exactly why the police are there.

[Cthulu_2004]

56. That's the way the law works...

it doesn't have to make sense, it's a matter of what the statute actually says.

Everybody knows that private ownership of machineguns, flamethrowers, grenades, landmines, and artillery is illegal, right? Wrong. Ya gotta read the code.

BTW, mens rea isn't the justification for breaking into a house if you're freezing to death, that's necessity. Mens rea is "the guilty mind", an element of the crime. You've got to be going in to do something bad, the act alone isn't enough. That's why bouncing a check isn't necessarily illegal...while bouncing the check and then refusing to "make it good" is.

[lastliberalintexas]

38. Not in Texas

In Texas, the appropriate action would be for you to call the police. If you committed B & E to "recover" your own property, you could still be charged with a crime.

Maybe other states allow such a vigilante action. I am only aware of what the Texas Penal Code says on this subject, and it does not allow for such action.

[Cthulu_2004]

54. How?

Does or does not Texas State law for burglary have a mens rea element? Does or does not Texas recognize at LEAST a common law necessity defense?

[Cthulu_2004]

27. Nope...

criminally, "intent follows the bullet." If you are shooting at somebody and hit somebody else, if shooting the person you were aiming at was legal, it's not illegal. The civil suit may end up differently, of course.

[lastliberalintexas]

40. Not always

Recklessness can negate any legality of your actions. You could be charged with negligent homicide if you kill an innocent 3d party while chasing down and firing at a burglar you drove from your home, for example.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

10. Wow...

A death sentence for stealing a car?

By the way, can't it be said that the theives were actually acting in self defence when they shot at the owner? After all, he admitted that he fired first in the car park, and once he started chasing them, the theives had every right to suspect that he was going to kill them if he caught up to them.

In other words, is death a valid sentence for stealing a car, and what about the right of appeal?

What if he hadn't chased these guys, but instead had done some detective work on his own, discovered their identiites, and then gone to their house and shot them? Would that be murder, or just a delayed defense of his property?

In my opinion, the thieves should be charged with the theft of the car, and the owner should be charged with attempted murder.

[TXlib]

13. Hmmm

I don't believe criminals generally have a right to self-defence when it was their crime that brought on the violent response.

That being said, I don't think private citizens should ever be able to shoot at somebody when nothing more than property is at stake; that option should be reserved purely for legitimate (or justifiably perceived) self-defence.

What if he hadn't chased these guys, but instead had done some detective work on his own, discovered their identiites, and then gone to their house and shot them? Would that be murder, or just a delayed defense of his property?

Hmmm, in Texas, I'm not sure. My guess is that there's a damn good chance a jury wouldn't convict, especially if the shooter expressed concern for his own safety. However, my reponse would be that this was a job for the police, not him, and that armed response on the part of the thieves was to be expected, so he had to have gone there with intent to kill.

[Cthulu_2004]

31. murder...

"What if he hadn't chased these guys, but instead had done some detective work on his own, discovered their identiites, and then gone to their house and shot them? Would that be murder, or just a delayed defense of his property?"

unless they shot at him first while he was trying to recover his stolen property. It's not legal to shoot people after the fact. You are, however, allowed to recover your property. If he went to recover his property, they threatened him, and he shot them, it wouldn't be murder. If he went and hunted them down while NOT trying to recover his property, it would be.

"By the way, can't it be said that the theives were actually acting in self defence when they shot at the owner? After all, he admitted that he fired first in the car park, and once he started chasing them, the theives had every right to suspect that he was going to kill them if he caught up to them."

Nope. They were legally in the wrong from the point that they tried to steal the car. The victim was legally in the right when shooting at them. Justification is a defense, a "shield", if you will. The theives would be using it as a sword, which isn't permissable. Once they committed the crime, they were obligated to flee, and couldn't use self defense as a shield, unless they ran away and became trapped, at which point they could use the shield. These bozos were still running away when they fired on him, so no legal shield for them.

[slackmaster]

49. The concept of "sentence" does not apply in this situation

Death or otherwise. This was a gunfight that started as a car theft. Only courts of law can pass sentences.

[Romulus]

12. depends

in an ideal world, I would charge the chaser. You shouldn't go shooting in a populated area unless you have no other choice to protect your life against the threat of unlawful deadly force being used against you. It's just not socially responsible, to use a good doublespeak term.

[Aaron]

42. Thoughtful post Romulus -

Made me rethink my position. I guess I need to consider this issue more.

[Romulus]

43. thanks, Aaron

Guess I should clarify while I'm at it.

It "depends" because the RE charge should stick only if there was a greater risk of harming a third party due to high population density, i.e. Arlington, VA. If there was less danger, i.e. in the middle of rural southwest VA, I think the initial confrontation-firing incident should be chargeable as aggravated assault because there was no need yet to employ deadly force. The grand jury should at least hear the evidence on that one.

The later chase and shootout is a tougher question because the guy was trying to get his property back when they shot at him. Shooting back in that case is much more on the "self-defense" side.

Edited to add: Yes, I have a concealed handgun permit, so I try to understand the law as it pertains to these sorts of things. Generally, you should at least try to get away if possible before deploying a firearm, not matter what the law may permit you to do. It's cheaper and safer in the long run. Just ask yourself if backruptcy from the ensuing legal costs is better than what you are immediately facing.

[Aaron]

47. That makes sense -

I really hand't thought about this until today I don't think. I guess it's not really a concern for me, I sold my trucks so I could pay for school - so there's nothing for someone to steal from in front of my house that's of any value. But when I had my trucks, well, I can understand how this guy felt. I admire your attention to the complexities, I guess there are a lot of things to consider. I think this is confusing for me because I sympathize with the guy - and I'm a strong backer of self-defense rather than expecting police to solve everything that comes up, so when someone actively works to defend themselves/property - I have a hard time with supporting charges against him. But like you noted, there is a risk to others, especially in an urban area, and the issue of recovery of property versus trying to punish the car thieves - so it's a toughie for me. "The devil is in the details", or something like that.

[Bake]

14. I don't know about Texas, but in most states

it is illegal to use deadly force to prevent the theft of property. You can use deadly force to defend your HOME from invasion (the idea being that if the intruder knows you're home or that it would be reasonable to think you might be home, you can assume that he's not there for a social call ...).

This guy (the vic) would be charged with one or more crimes in most states. Again, I can't speak for Texas. Reckless endangerment at the minimum. If one of his stray bullets hit and killed a bystander, he could be charged with some form of homicide/manslaughter.

This came up (similar fact pattern, anyway) on the bar exam recently, in fact.

Bake

[GOPisEvil]

18. Texas law is wider in scope...

...the phrase is "land or tangible, movable property"...the links above go into detail about justifiable use of force.

[Cthulu_2004]

33. Texas specifically allows...

use of force in defense of certain property.

Good thing you weren't taking the Bar in Texas... ;-)


BTW, in order for there to be reckless endangerment, doesn't somebody specific need to be recklessly endangered? I mean, hey, if I own a couple of square miles of unoccupied land, go to the center of it, get rip-roaring drunk, and shoot up into the air 50,000 times, did I recklessly endanger anybody? It's reckless as hell conduct, of course, but simple physics dictates that there was no danger posed to anybody else, since the bullets couldn't travel far enough to get off the unoccupied land. This is a variation of the "one hand clapping" bit...

[TXlib]

34. To answer your question

You are not reckless in firing your gun in the air like that if, and only if, clear warnings are posted to any potential intruder, and the perimeter is marked in such a way that it's not possible for anybody to be unaware that they're trespassing.

IMHO, anyway; the law may state differently, and in Texas, I'm sure it does.

[Aaron]

41. potential counter agurment

Not a great counter argument but police do shootouts/highspeed chases too. So maybe this guy was saving bothering the police when he could do it himself? FWIW I might've done the same thing the guy did - I've never really thought about it. I'm not sure I'd go as far as he did with the chasing/shooting - I guess we'll find out if it ever happens.

equally probably weak counter argument - it's his stuff, he has a right to protect it
equally probably weak counter argument - people who steal cars are creeps and potentially violent esp. those that carry firearms, by removing them from criminal ability now he can prevent them from engaging in later crimes that might hurt someone greater than whatever potential risk he placed the public at

Edited to add: Romulus' post has me rethinking this now...

I'm still not sure where I stand. I can't see not letting people defend their property from thieves. We've got alot of auto-thefts in Portland. When I was much younger someone stole my dad's car and it was gone for a week, got it back trashed, no clue who did it. He had to pay tow yard fees and storage fees and some other fee to get it back from the police, they never found who did it, and the car was totalled and IIRC no theft insurance. My parents are solidly middle class now, but we weren't doing as well then, the cost of fixing the car, the tow fees, being without the car for a week (maybe it was 5 days or so) everything had to have been a big impact on them. The people who did it were never caught as I recall.

The budget situation in Oregon is bad enough that they're letting people who commit property crimes go uncharged or at least without some jail time. Same people will get arrested more than a dozen times in a month or something like that for petty crimes - but my guess is that they're not petty to the people they hurt. Like someone who is retired, fixed income, social security and a small pension or something - if someone steals and wrecks their car... where are they going to get the money to fix it or buy a new one?

I've known some guys who broke into cars too. I think they always figured it was an 'occupational hazard' if they got shot at. I wonder what the risk is of a car thief stealing another car versus a car owner shooting at a car thief and accidently hitting someone else.

[geniph]

44. The penalty for stealing a car is not normally death

thus, I would find shooting at someone who was stealing going just a trifle overboard. Up until they shot at me, then certainly defending yourself is justified. But I think defending property with deadly force is over the line.

[slackmaster]

51. Again, the concept of "penalty" does not apply except in court

This was a completely extrajudicial situation involving an individual citizen defending his property rights against thieves. There was no law enforcement involved, no jury to determine what actually happened, and no judge to pronounce sentence. A closer analogy would be someone who uses deadly force defending against a physical assault by another person.

The car owner's right to use deadly force to protect his property at night is guaranteed by Texas law and tradition that can be traced back to days when cattle ranching was the prominent economic activity there. I believe that is unique among US states.

As has been noted here already, the law provides criminal penalties for a person who harms or kills an innocent bystander while exercising that right. Personally I find the use of deadly force to protect a car to be a bit over the top. Mine are always insured against theft, and I'd rather have to shop for a new one than deal with having shot someone. OTOH if I lived in Texas I'd think more than twice about becoming a thief.

[TXlib]

48. Thanks, everybody, this has become a great thread!

I'm gratified to see no flame-wars got started; just good, thoughtful discussion!