5 ms·

https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground links to https://www.uslawshield.com/defend-pro

https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground links to https://www.uslawshield.com/defend-property-texas/ https://www.uslawshield.com/defend-property-texas/ > Texas law allows you to use deadly force to protect property if you would be justified in using force, and you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission of specific enumerated property crimes. These are arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. I'd think that'd qualify. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=PE&chapter=PE.9&artSec=#D https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=PE&chapter=PE... > 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.

sokoloff 1mo ago
I can’t see a catalytic converter theft on a car parked on the street as burglary. Parked in a (private) garage? Yes, burglary. Parked on the street? No. So, daytime theft of a converter from a car parked outside wouldn’t qualify I don’t think.
- thaumasiotes 1mo ago
  If you sleep in the car it will qualify no matter where you're parked. This also appears to be true of an RV or any vehicle that clearly accommodates sleeping. For reference: "Burglary" under the Texas penal code is defined by entering a habitation or any portion of a building that is not open to the public, either with the intent to commit a crime, or when followed by the actual commission of, or the attempt to commit, a crime. "Robbery" is theft in which the thief causes an injury to someone else. (Or intentionally threatens to do so.) "Theft" is what it sounds like. Most notably burglary need not include any element of theft. I feel like it's a mistake for the legal code to distinguish between what are fully interchangeable terms in the language the code is supposedly written in. On topic for this particular comment, "habitation" is specifically defined to include vehicles "adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons".
  - thejazzman 1mo ago
    > Private Domicile, BITCH https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEdaQcq4w88 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEdaQcq4w88
  - logicchains 1mo ago
    >I feel like it's a mistake for the legal code to distinguish between what are fully interchangeable terms in the language the code is supposedly written in. They're not at all fully interchangeable, just many Americans have a poor grasp of the English language.
    - thaumasiotes 1mo ago
      The language is solely defined by what people think it means. The terms are in fact fully interchangeable. If you'd like it packaged in something that looks authoritative, you might consider the following definitions from Merriam-Webster: burgle: to commit robbery rob: to take away as loot : steal thieve: steal, rob
      - spolitry 1mo ago
        So? Are you proposing that huge classes of law simply must not exist just because laypeople are casual with language?
        thaumasiotes 1mo ago
        Laypeople aren't casual with language. You're not going to hear anyone referring to a theft as a bubble bath. They know what the words mean. But the law is using the language incorrectly in ways that are guaranteed to cause confusion. This is a problem. The law should be using the language correctly, which it isn't doing now.
        sokoloff 1mo ago
        The law is defining the language within the law, including the required elements that must be proven in order for the crime to result in a conviction. The law does not require nor permit you to bring your own dictionary for crimes; they give you the definition for free and require to use theirs. As an example, burglary is defined in Texas Penal Code § 30.02 - Burglary: https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/PE/htm/PE.30.htm https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/PE/htm/PE.30.htm They further go on to define "building" and "habitation" in Penal Code § 30.01. If you find a dictionary definition that conflicts with the Texas Penal Code's definition of burglary or of a building, guess which one prevails in a criminal proceeding in Texas?
- nonethewiser 1mo ago
  Parked in your driveway
  - thaumasiotes 1mo ago
    No, the driveway wouldn't count. Texas doesn't define burglary by property boundaries; you have to enter a "building" or a "habitation", and a habitation must be a "structure" or a "vehicle".
    - pclmulqdq 1mo ago
      Are you sure that doesn't qualify on the basis that it is the curtilage of your home? Often this counts as "in your dwelling" because it's in your private space that immediately accompanies the dwelling.
      - thaumasiotes 1mo ago
        > Often this counts as "in your dwelling" Is this true in any context other than a potential fourth amendment violation by an agent of the state?
        pclmulqdq 1mo ago
        I think this has applied in the case of self defense in Texas, at least on someone’s porch. Curtilage is a general concept, not specific to the fourth amendment.
        thaumasiotes 1mo ago
        Well, I found an analysis by a Texas law firm: https://www.lapinlawtx.com/firearms-blog/2025-001 https://www.lapinlawtx.com/firearms-blog/2025-001 This does say that > Arguably, the protections contained in the [self-defense] statute include what is referred to in legal parlance as the “curtilage” of the property (a home’s porch, steps, garage, or yard) But the reasoning is, specifically, that defending yourself against someone who is in the curtilage must be protected, because defending yourself against someone who is "attempting to enter" your habitation is protected, and it's impossible to attempt to enter the habitation without being in the curtilage. This is not compatible with your analysis, which assumes that a person present in the curtilage has already entered the habitation.
- slashdev 1mo ago
  It also mentions: > theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. Seems like that qualifies
  - comrh 1mo ago
    I think this even covers graffiti during the nighttime.
    - worthless-trash 1mo ago
      [flagged]
    - slashdev 1mo ago
      Yes, I think so. I doubt a court would interpret that as being reasonable use of force though. In English common-law it's not just the wording of the laws that matter, one must also look at how the courts have interpreted and applied them.
      - joquarky 1mo ago
        And all of that is overridden if you have enough wealth.
- timcobb 1mo ago
  What's the point of Texas, then? Maybe Florida?
chadgpt3 1mo ago
You can legally murder people to prevent "mischief", as long as it's at night? Wow.
- thaumasiotes 1mo ago
  The alternative would be completely incoherent. If it's OK to prevent theft, the appropriation of property, it must also be OK to prevent criminal mischief, which is the destruction of property. Note that the harm to the victim is identical in both cases, except that in the case of theft, recovery may be possible.
- nekusar 1mo ago
  Yeah. You expect pigs to defend you?
- nonethewiser 1mo ago
  “Legal” murder makes absolutely no sense. If its legal its not murder. You mean “legally kill”
  - aidenn0 1mo ago
    It can also mean unjustified/immoral killing, which can be a useful definition (otherwise e.g. a true dictator can never murder anyone).
    - rayiner 1mo ago
      That’s not a useful definition in a democracy. Who gets to define what’s justified if not the duly elected legislature? I bet if you put the current Texas law on the ballot today you’d get the same answer.
      - ipaddr 1mo ago
        If you put that on the ballot in other states this would be more popular than initially thought by most.
      - 1mo ago
bulbar 1mo ago
Deadly force can be lawful in Germany as well, reading Texas law I wonder which nuances of the laws make the biggest difference (assuming there's one). Could also be that the difference comes from owning land works differently in Germany (because it's much more densely populated) and of course owning anything except small guns is completely forbidden.
- butvacuum 1mo ago
  people freqently conflate Stand Your Ground vs Duty to Retreat... with the entire rest of the debate. I'm trying to keep this neutral, so I'm using a rather cut and dry example: Somebody kicks in your door with a pump action and starts shooting- There are _some_ jurisdictions that require you to try and flee. You kill them and they werent bodily blocking your car in? Murder charge. investigation finds a sabatoged engine? Doesn't matter. Stand Your Ground assumes reasonableness and codifies leaveing the fight or flee decision up to the individual. Ultimately- you're going to have PTSD either way.
  - crote 1mo ago
    Your example isn't quite as cut-and-dry because in a lot of cases that's going to involve the Castle Doctrine as well, and "starts shooting" means there is an actual danger merely than a perceived potential danger. Counter-example: You're walking on the streets, at night, in the "bad part" of town. Someone walks towards you with their hands in their pockets, and their head covered with a hoodie. They say "Hey, what are you doing here?". You perceive this to be a threatening situation and fear for your life. Are you supposed to: a) pull out your gun and shoot them, or b) run away? Some proponents of Stand Your Ground would say that option A is perfectly fine, some proponents of Duty To Retreat would say that you must attempt option B first, and fall back to option A only as a last resort.
    - butvacuum 1mo ago
      It seems I may have misremembered my example and inadvertantly made duty to retreat appear worse than it is. However- it was meant to highlight the positons both sides and it holds correct enough for thst still.
butvacuum 1mo ago
First off- Texas has an explicit law making copper and catalytic converter theft a "Jail felony"- but if you break any other laws on the way, it's upgraded to a class 3 felony. See: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=PE&chapter=PE.31&artSec=31.21 https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=PE&chapter=PE... And. if you really want to play cops and robbers, a personally witnessed jail felony seems to be enough for a citzen's arrest. Second: "(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." - YOU HAVE TO BE AFRAID FOR YOUR LIFE Texas gives citizens enourmous latitude in these matters, but it's not carte blanche for murder.
- dmurray 1mo ago
  Afraid for your life if you were to confront the thief. That reasonably covers pretty much all cases, especially in a state where lots of people have guns.
  - crote 1mo ago
    In other words: don't be an idiot and call the cops instead. That's what they are supposed to be for!
    - redeeman 1mo ago
      and the thieves got away
    - NuclearPM 1mo ago
      Texas cops? The ones that stop parents from saving their children during school shootings?
      - derektank 1mo ago
        The Uvalde police department exhibited both cowardice and incompetence, but can we stop pretending they are representative of cops everywhere? Just a year later during the mall shooting in Allen Texas, cops took down the white supremacist, neo-nazi perpetrator in under 5 minutes, probably saving at least a co couple dozen lives (he’d already killed 9). You can watch the bodycam footage from that event if there’s any doubt https://youtu.be/LWvKT5fHa0U https://youtu.be/LWvKT5fHa0U

sokoloff 1mo ago

I can’t see a catalytic converter theft on a car parked on the street as burglary. Parked in a (private) garage? Yes, burglary. Parked on the street? No. So, daytime theft of a converter from a car parked outside wouldn’t qualify I don’t think.

thaumasiotes 1mo ago
If you sleep in the car it will qualify no matter where you're parked. This also appears to be true of an RV or any vehicle that clearly accommodates sleeping. For reference: "Burglary" under the Texas penal code is defined by entering a habitation or any portion of a building that is not open to the public, either with the intent to commit a crime, or when followed by the actual commission of, or the attempt to commit, a crime. "Robbery" is theft in which the thief causes an injury to someone else. (Or intentionally threatens to do so.) "Theft" is what it sounds like. Most notably burglary need not include any element of theft. I feel like it's a mistake for the legal code to distinguish between what are fully interchangeable terms in the language the code is supposedly written in. On topic for this particular comment, "habitation" is specifically defined to include vehicles "adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons".
- thejazzman 1mo ago
  > Private Domicile, BITCH https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEdaQcq4w88 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEdaQcq4w88
- logicchains 1mo ago
  >I feel like it's a mistake for the legal code to distinguish between what are fully interchangeable terms in the language the code is supposedly written in. They're not at all fully interchangeable, just many Americans have a poor grasp of the English language.
  - thaumasiotes 1mo ago
    The language is solely defined by what people think it means. The terms are in fact fully interchangeable. If you'd like it packaged in something that looks authoritative, you might consider the following definitions from Merriam-Webster: burgle: to commit robbery rob: to take away as loot : steal thieve: steal, rob
    - spolitry 1mo ago
      So? Are you proposing that huge classes of law simply must not exist just because laypeople are casual with language?
      - thaumasiotes 1mo ago
        Laypeople aren't casual with language. You're not going to hear anyone referring to a theft as a bubble bath. They know what the words mean. But the law is using the language incorrectly in ways that are guaranteed to cause confusion. This is a problem. The law should be using the language correctly, which it isn't doing now.
        sokoloff 1mo ago
        The law is defining the language within the law, including the required elements that must be proven in order for the crime to result in a conviction. The law does not require nor permit you to bring your own dictionary for crimes; they give you the definition for free and require to use theirs. As an example, burglary is defined in Texas Penal Code § 30.02 - Burglary: https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/PE/htm/PE.30.htm https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/PE/htm/PE.30.htm They further go on to define "building" and "habitation" in Penal Code § 30.01. If you find a dictionary definition that conflicts with the Texas Penal Code's definition of burglary or of a building, guess which one prevails in a criminal proceeding in Texas?
nonethewiser 1mo ago
Parked in your driveway
- thaumasiotes 1mo ago
  No, the driveway wouldn't count. Texas doesn't define burglary by property boundaries; you have to enter a "building" or a "habitation", and a habitation must be a "structure" or a "vehicle".
  - pclmulqdq 1mo ago
    Are you sure that doesn't qualify on the basis that it is the curtilage of your home? Often this counts as "in your dwelling" because it's in your private space that immediately accompanies the dwelling.
    - thaumasiotes 1mo ago
      > Often this counts as "in your dwelling" Is this true in any context other than a potential fourth amendment violation by an agent of the state?
      - pclmulqdq 1mo ago
        I think this has applied in the case of self defense in Texas, at least on someone’s porch. Curtilage is a general concept, not specific to the fourth amendment.
        thaumasiotes 1mo ago
        Well, I found an analysis by a Texas law firm: https://www.lapinlawtx.com/firearms-blog/2025-001 https://www.lapinlawtx.com/firearms-blog/2025-001 This does say that > Arguably, the protections contained in the [self-defense] statute include what is referred to in legal parlance as the “curtilage” of the property (a home’s porch, steps, garage, or yard) But the reasoning is, specifically, that defending yourself against someone who is in the curtilage must be protected, because defending yourself against someone who is "attempting to enter" your habitation is protected, and it's impossible to attempt to enter the habitation without being in the curtilage. This is not compatible with your analysis, which assumes that a person present in the curtilage has already entered the habitation.
slashdev 1mo ago
It also mentions: > theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. Seems like that qualifies
- comrh 1mo ago
  I think this even covers graffiti during the nighttime.
  - worthless-trash 1mo ago
    [flagged]
  - slashdev 1mo ago
    Yes, I think so. I doubt a court would interpret that as being reasonable use of force though. In English common-law it's not just the wording of the laws that matter, one must also look at how the courts have interpreted and applied them.
    - joquarky 1mo ago
      And all of that is overridden if you have enough wealth.
timcobb 1mo ago
What's the point of Texas, then? Maybe Florida?

chadgpt3 1mo ago

You can legally murder people to prevent "mischief", as long as it's at night? Wow.

thaumasiotes 1mo ago
The alternative would be completely incoherent. If it's OK to prevent theft, the appropriation of property, it must also be OK to prevent criminal mischief, which is the destruction of property. Note that the harm to the victim is identical in both cases, except that in the case of theft, recovery may be possible.
nekusar 1mo ago
Yeah. You expect pigs to defend you?
nonethewiser 1mo ago
“Legal” murder makes absolutely no sense. If its legal its not murder. You mean “legally kill”
- aidenn0 1mo ago
  It can also mean unjustified/immoral killing, which can be a useful definition (otherwise e.g. a true dictator can never murder anyone).
  - rayiner 1mo ago
    That’s not a useful definition in a democracy. Who gets to define what’s justified if not the duly elected legislature? I bet if you put the current Texas law on the ballot today you’d get the same answer.
    - ipaddr 1mo ago
      If you put that on the ballot in other states this would be more popular than initially thought by most.
    - 1mo ago

bulbar 1mo ago

Deadly force can be lawful in Germany as well, reading Texas law I wonder which nuances of the laws make the biggest difference (assuming there's one). Could also be that the difference comes from owning land works differently in Germany (because it's much more densely populated) and of course owning anything except small guns is completely forbidden.

butvacuum 1mo ago
people freqently conflate Stand Your Ground vs Duty to Retreat... with the entire rest of the debate. I'm trying to keep this neutral, so I'm using a rather cut and dry example: Somebody kicks in your door with a pump action and starts shooting- There are _some_ jurisdictions that require you to try and flee. You kill them and they werent bodily blocking your car in? Murder charge. investigation finds a sabatoged engine? Doesn't matter. Stand Your Ground assumes reasonableness and codifies leaveing the fight or flee decision up to the individual. Ultimately- you're going to have PTSD either way.
- crote 1mo ago
  Your example isn't quite as cut-and-dry because in a lot of cases that's going to involve the Castle Doctrine as well, and "starts shooting" means there is an actual danger merely than a perceived potential danger. Counter-example: You're walking on the streets, at night, in the "bad part" of town. Someone walks towards you with their hands in their pockets, and their head covered with a hoodie. They say "Hey, what are you doing here?". You perceive this to be a threatening situation and fear for your life. Are you supposed to: a) pull out your gun and shoot them, or b) run away? Some proponents of Stand Your Ground would say that option A is perfectly fine, some proponents of Duty To Retreat would say that you must attempt option B first, and fall back to option A only as a last resort.
  - butvacuum 1mo ago
    It seems I may have misremembered my example and inadvertantly made duty to retreat appear worse than it is. However- it was meant to highlight the positons both sides and it holds correct enough for thst still.

butvacuum 1mo ago

First off- Texas has an explicit law making copper and catalytic converter theft a "Jail felony"- but if you break any other laws on the way, it's upgraded to a class 3 felony. See: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=PE&chapter=PE.31&artSec=31.21 https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=PE&chapter=PE... And. if you really want to play cops and robbers, a personally witnessed jail felony seems to be enough for a citzen's arrest. Second: "(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." - YOU HAVE TO BE AFRAID FOR YOUR LIFE Texas gives citizens enourmous latitude in these matters, but it's not carte blanche for murder.

dmurray 1mo ago
Afraid for your life if you were to confront the thief. That reasonably covers pretty much all cases, especially in a state where lots of people have guns.
- crote 1mo ago
  In other words: don't be an idiot and call the cops instead. That's what they are supposed to be for!
  - redeeman 1mo ago
    and the thieves got away
  - NuclearPM 1mo ago
    Texas cops? The ones that stop parents from saving their children during school shootings?
    - derektank 1mo ago
      The Uvalde police department exhibited both cowardice and incompetence, but can we stop pretending they are representative of cops everywhere? Just a year later during the mall shooting in Allen Texas, cops took down the white supremacist, neo-nazi perpetrator in under 5 minutes, probably saving at least a co couple dozen lives (he’d already killed 9). You can watch the bodycam footage from that event if there’s any doubt https://youtu.be/LWvKT5fHa0U https://youtu.be/LWvKT5fHa0U