Defend Property: Theft and Criminal Mischief in the Nighttime in Texas

When does Texas law allow you to use deadly force against theft and criminal mischief? How does the law define daytime and nighttime? Should you use deadly force to protect property alone? The Armed Attorneys break down the law of deadly force at nighttime for certain crimes and the practical application of Texas Penal Code 9.42 and Texas Penal Code 9.42
Join this channel to help support our 2A community:
/ @armedattorneys
#2A
#ArmedAttorneys
#SelfDefense
Follow us on Twitter and Instagram: @ArmedAttorneys
Richard D. Hayes, II: @TXGunLaw
Emily Taylor: @2A_Attorney
Make sure to subscribe for more gun law, self-defense, and firearm news.
Gun law, self-defense FAQs, and the 2A simplified every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 4 PM CT.
PARTIAL AUTO-TRANSCRIPT
Today we're talking about whether the sun makes a difference in your deadly force rights we're talking about criminal mischief and theft in the nighttime here in the state of Texas now there are some general takeaways here that can be applicable in other states though but we are discussing Texas law now stick around to the end because we have a pro tip about the difference between theft burglary and robbery you won't want to miss... it's really confusing it's really hard to get through and it contains i think one of the stranger provisions of Texas law which is this um this option to use deadly force only during the night time which is 30 minutes after sunset up until 30 minutes before sunrise that's the night time so it says the legislature um in defense against theft and criminal mischief and we're just going to talk about what those things mean generally yeah generally so when we say theft what we're talking about and this is this is a paraphrase but it's exercising control over someone's property without their consent that's what theft is in the state of Texas and when we say criminal mischief we're talking about destruction or damaging property without the owner's consent and so we have this provision in Texas law where if there's a theft in the nighttime taking place or there's a criminal mischief in the night time taking place that the law says deadly force may be justified and can you give us a little bit of more detail on that m yeah so i mean bear in mind that may be justified just means you're not automatically going to prison because you did it, it doesn't mean that the jury is going to acquit you because a jury still has to say it was reasonable when he or she used deadly force in that circumstance they're given no instruction i mean there are lots of uh places in the law in Texas where they're given an instruction to presume the self-defender acted reasonably unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not no such thing with this so i mean there are i would say probably most circumstances in which this is really inadvisable i mean the kids come around at Halloween they start smashing your you know Halloween decorations and your pumpkins well that's criminal mischief if you shoot those kids you're going to prison right so just because the law says you could do it does not mean that you should because a jury gets to decide was that active deadly force reasonable yeah and what's so fascinating about this provision of law is and we see a lot of cases that take place across the state of Texas if you are relying on defense of property alone if that's the only thing you're relying on for your use of force or deadly force juries in Texas do not like it there are three different hurdles of reasonableness that have to be overcome in order for them to find that your conduct would be justified and so that's one of those things like Emily said while it may be on the books it is very rarely advised because it's so infrequently successfully used at trial so you got to use extreme caution... the best example i know of to teach you the difference robbery is a personal defense crime burglary is you know a property crime breaking into something theft is just taking something so here's what we've got you're riding a bicycle someone comes and clotheslines you takes the bicycle from you you've been robbed you put your bicycle in the garage someone breaks into your garage to steal it that's a burglary you just leave your bicycle in the driveway someone walks up and takes it that's theft
General Information Only
The material presented is for general informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only and should not be construed to be formal legal advice or the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. You should not rely on this information or its applicability to any specific circumstances without speaking with an attorney.
All Rights Reserved
This material was produced in the United States of America. No part of this material may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.

[@larrysfarris]

IIRC, the law about being able to protect your property during the night hours was written back during a time before widespread rural electrification. Personally, I glad it's still "on the books" even though people don't live such an isolated existence as they once did.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Awesome observation!

[@CORNDODGER]

Just wished I was more ISOLATED Now days

[@swde4793]

I agree, how ever Many people Still Do Live Quite Isolated. Much More than You May Think.

[@DaveL9170]

@@ArmedAttorneys I am a hard core 2A advocate and a hard core Republican; however, we really shouldn’t be arguing for shooting a person over simple property. Your precious car or truck can be replaced. They are NOT a person. Using deadly force to protect property just is a generally speaking a bridge too far.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

@@DaveL9170 you’re not wrong. In the past decade we haven’t seen a defendant relying on defense of property alone (no person in danger) acquitted of a murder charge.

[@largelarry2126]

Years back we had someone break out a window into our garage then tried to steel our motorcycle. Instead of grabbing a gun I let our meat grinding 124 lbs. German Shepard out. The dog jumped through the same window trapping the man inside the garage and proceeded to field dress him ripping big chunks of skin and muscle off. He got back out of the window and ran off then showed up at the ER at the nearby hospital within the hour. He received 340 stiches on his arms, legs chest and neck and never told anyone how he got bit. We found out from a neighbor who told us it was on TV. Loved that dog!

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Yikes! That's serious business!

[@paullinkins8121]

Dogs are awesome!

[@elfinmagic3111]

a good dog is something special

[@flyoverkid55]

Texas is unique in this regard, most states would rather you sit idly while thieves do their bidding.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

You're not wrong!

[@geckoproductions4128]

@@ArmedAttorneys it would seem that way in california

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Hey all we say 9.43 in the video. Meant to say 9.42 . Sorry for the confusion!

[@markreynolds3850]

Thanks for sharing this video.interesting and informative.

[@hoosierplowboy5299]

Excellent explanation of the various legal forms of property crimes. You join the Armed Scholar as my go to source for legal to layman language...

[@luisc3682]

I know a lot about Texas guns laws thanks to Emily, I don't even notice that Richard is there 🤣.

[@durgan5668]

Don't do the crime if you're not prepared to pay the consequences. We see the results of society coddling criminals today.

[@greyman1k]

Oops! Sorry about earlier question....I just watched your video "What makes a great self defense case" where the questions posed below were answered. Still trying to catch-up on all your earlier videos I missed. You both are great...luv ya!

[@duanelavely5481]

I attended H.S. in Houston from '62 - '65. I remember a period of armed robberies of a locally owned chain of 24 hr. convenience stores at night. Since H.P.D. couldn't be everywhere, the owner installed 1 way mirrors & hired armed security (off duty police). I knew the owners. The rash of armed robberies ended after several encounters did not end well for the robbers. Many yrs. later I became a NALA cert. paralegal in Houston. I now live in Id. & have often wondered if Tx. still had the "dusk to dawn" self defense of person & property laws. Ca. needs them right now. I'm glad that I found you.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Very cool (albeit tragic) story. Thank you for joining us!

[@dimtucas359]

Thank you 👍🇺🇸

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Thanks Dim!

[@bobwallace3295]

As a native Texan, I've often wondered about the use of deadly force to protect property ... but never researched the applicable law(s). Wasn't even fully aware of the nighttime aspect! Thanks for the excellent, basic explanation. I have watched many of your videos with great interest the past several weeks and always come away with a better understanding ... even if some laws/situations don't always seem like common sense on the surface. You have a new subscriber ... thanks for what you are doing!

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Thank you Bob; that makes us tremendously happy! Glad to have you aboard!

[@scottkendrix6231]

Easiest distinguishing factor between the 3...robbery is when the person used force, burglary is when they destroyed property, theft involves neither. That's why, if someone breaks into a home and then beats up the homeowner, that person will often be charged with burglary and robbery.

[@LarryEArnold]

Thanks for the robbery/burglary/theft distinction. I've been tracking Texas gun laws proposed in the Legislature since back in the 1990s, and periodically a representative will try to remove robbery and aggravated robbery from the list of offenses which justify deadly force, (murder, assault, sexual assault, etc.,) because "robbery is a property crime, not a violent crime." They usually "happen" to include that in a gun-control bill.

[@YourVegasRealtor]

Even though I’m not in Texas, this channel has some great information all around. Subbed!!

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Thanks Jorge we try to keep it 3-4 federal videos for every 1 Texas video. Thanks for joining the community.

[@YourVegasRealtor]

@@ArmedAttorneys awesome, great job. Thanks for what you do.

[@Smarterthanyou-mthrfkr]

Let’s go Brandon!.

[@sidwalker6902]

Most attorneys have arms, at least one.

[@Archimedes616]

A few decades ago in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, a man shot at someone trying to steal his hubcaps at night, missing the thief and causing him to run off. But some of the thief's buddies were in a parked car nearby, and the guy with the gun (AR or AK type semiauto) opened fire on the vehicle and killed a couple of people inside. He was not charged. Was that perhaps because the people in the car were considered a "party" to the theft at night?

[@nn431xru1]

since it was in TX he is incredibly lucky. if this incident happened in any of the blue states, he would be doing life.

[@MikeNaples]

There is a legal principle in a lot of jurisdictions that if someone is harmed during commission of a crime then the perp(s) is (are) responsible. For example. Many years ago in Collier County Florida a fireman heard some noise in his backyard. Turns out two men were trying to steal an outboard motor from his boat. He went out on the porch and started shooting. Killed one thief and the other ran off. The runner was caught and charged with murder now serving a life sentence. The fireman was patted on the back. (BTW,I don't recommend shooting people trying to steal stuff from your yard.)

[@Archimedes616]

@@MikeNaples "(BTW,I don't recommend shooting people trying to steal stuff from your yard.)" I do if it's at night and in Texas.

[@robgrey6183]

heartwarming story.

[@charlesdavis3923]

Interesting, I hadn't ever heard that distinction between robbery, burglary and theft. Learn something new every day

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Thanks, Charles!

[@dukenukem9770]

In parts of New Mexico (the blue parts), the political optics of a defensive shooting play an enormous role in deciding if charges are pursued.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

It’s becoming more and more common. Thanks as always for stopping by Duke.

[@bombsaway6340]

Great discussion, as a Texan, glad to know the law a bit better.

[@lutherthompson8314]

Happy New Year to both of you and your families, and many more to come.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Happy New Year Luther!

[@terrygregory3456]

Actually, it depends on where you live in Texas and who the prosecutor is in addition to the circumstances!

[@ArmedAttorneys]

100%

[@deepstatearmory]

Just has a debate with a friend on this one. Under Penal Code 9.42, deadly force may be used to protect land or property when a person reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to: prevent arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft at NIGHT, or criminal mischief during NIGHTTIME; prevent someone fleeing with property after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the NIGHTTIME. Curious to hear the Armed Attorneys youtube video.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Video is up Jess! Let us know what you think.

[@deepstatearmory]

@@ArmedAttorneys I agree with you, its a great example on how not to write a law. Keep making videos!

[@rockinbbar]

I'm glad you guys hit on this. I agree that the threshold should be high on use of deadly force. Personally, I have the "In fear for my life" ingrained. Nighttime burglary of a habitation will probably put most in fear for their life if at home though. I hope you guys can make some time to address the Lubbock incident where deadly force was used recently. It's pretty controversial right now. Lots of differing views on it.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Hey B Bar-agreed we are looking into the Lubbock case!

[@DJG37S]

I just found your YT recently and love the content!!!!! I always say this in my self defense classes "Items can be replaced, a human life can't." What this means is that if you see some one causing minor destruction like damaging your property like fence, grass, car, etc to use the best judgement and not rush so quickly to use deadly force. Yes it sucks when you see some one causing damage to your property, but that property can always be replaced, by either your insurance, or in a lawsuit. If you used deadly force in that situation now you put yourself in a huge pickle that might actually cause you to spend time in jail. Now this is different if you see some one trying to completely steal your car, like then that would warrant a self defense.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Glad you found us. Welcome aboard!

[@jerrysmith3516]

Maybe it's from what I was taught growing up as I'm 50 now born in 71 but the thought of just standing by doing nothing when someone is destroying my property completely goes against my grain. I was taught to respect other people's property and to say you own something but can't defend it is ludicrous it like saying you have to work for those who refuse to and who have to much pride in themselves to actually get a real job.

[@catman4x466]

Loving y’all’s content and how you break it all down and put into perspective. 👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Thanks for the feedback! It is greatly appreciated!

[@dustinmeier9753]

I’d like to see a video on authorized use of deadly force, at night, on a horse ranch with breeding stallions. This is aside from the obvious ‘No Trespassing’ signs posted, the purple painted fence posts, and the locked gates. I’ve heard (from our game warden) that the stallions being present and proof that they are used for breeding is the difference between authorized use of force and unauthorized use.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Very interesting topic Dustin! Thank you for sharing!

[@geckoproductions4128]

@@ArmedAttorneys see if your game warden is willing to defend you in court. Don't take advice from a well meaning cop....take it from a judge, ask a lawyer

[@paraAA82]

Remember guys, Texas is…Texas.

[@believe722]

Thanks for the info.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

You’re welcome! Thanks for hanging out!

[@ansiviewer]

When exercising God given U.S. Constitutional Rights, then attacked requiring self-defense while being armed with a firearm, there is a reasonable expectation of being overwhelmed by less-than-lethal attacks leading to the loss of a firearm, then the firearm being used to further the attack on a defender. While armed, is it reasonable to defend yourself and your firearm? Through my training, a firearm is a last defense, however, there is an understanding the last defense may be within seconds. I would appreciate your insight.

[@greyman1k]

Not necessarily related, but your opinion please. Assuming deadly force is justified, would one be likely to be better off (legally, criminal and civil) wounding to stop threat or take the leap to terminate the threat? I have heard arguments both ways. Your counsel/opinion will be highly regarded, even though your viewers live in many other states and jurisdictions.

[@edwinlee6864]

The point of the law is not protecting any specific property, the point is the institution of "property". If property cannot be defended by deadly force, there is no property. No property, no hospitals, no food, no shelter, nothing that belongs to a person. Your labor is free. You are a slave of everyone if anyone can take the fruits of your labor. Bother to use prime principles. Of course if the thief or the vandal threatens you with serious bodily injury and appears to be able to carry out that threat at that time, then it turns into robbery. If the thief turns back and looks at you, and appears able to hurt you, and suggests that he would cause you serious bodily injury if you tried to use force (not deadly force) to protect your property, it has turned into robbery. It is important for prosecutors, judges, and juries to understand the institution of property and not be distracted by the value of the property in question. The institution of property is essential to human life and is not in conflict with the value of human life. It is false to compare any item of property to the value of any specific human life. The law supports the requirement to have the institution of property for human life (no property--no food, no hospitals). Unfortunately too few people, especially prosecutors---who gain property (salary, promotions) by convictions, not justice, not upholding the basic principles of organized society, are honest about what is at stake. Too many jurors don't think of what is at stake when deciding the reasonableness of the loss of human life, and compare that specific human life with an item of property, not property as the basis of society. The Armed Attorneys are correct as to the danger to a defender of property in a society of lawless prosecutors and jurors who don't understand the necessity to have the institution of property.

[@jerrysmith3516]

Great explanation this is also what I believe but did not know how to say it as eloquently as you. Thanks for posting

[@lanceroberthough1275]

Thanks again for thorough yet succinct explanations much respect!

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Glad it was helpful Lance!

[@foofyguy]

I had several bikes stolen as a kid. There is a special place in hell for bike thieves.

[@frostriver4547]

Georgia code seems to have been written more clearly: 16-3-20. Justification The fact that a person's conduct is justified is a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct. The defense of justification can be claimed:(1) When the person's conduct is justified under Code Section 16-3-21, 16-3-23, 16-3-24, 16-3-25, or 16-3-26; (2) When the person's conduct is in reasonable fulfillment of his duties as a government officer or employee; (3) When the person's conduct is the reasonable discipline of a minor by his parent or a person in loco parentis; (4) When the person's conduct is reasonable and is performed in the course of making a lawful arrest; (5) When the person's conduct is justified for any other reason under the laws of this state, including as provided in Code Section 51-1-29; or (6) In all other instances which stand upon the same footing of reason and justice as those enumerated in this article. 16-3-21. Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; (2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or (3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force. (c) Any rule, regulation, or policy of any agency of the state or any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or policy of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state which is in conflict with this Code section shall be null, void, and of no force and effect. (d) In a prosecution for murder or manslaughter, if a defendant raises as a defense a justification provided by subsection (a) of this Code section, the defendant, in order to establish the defendant's reasonable belief that the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary, may be permitted to offer:(1) Relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of family violence or child abuse committed by the deceased, as such acts are described in Code Sections 19-13-1 and 19-15-1, respectively; and (2) Relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and circumstances relating to the family violence or child abuse that are the bases of the expert's opinion. 16-3-23. Use of force in defense of habitation A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; (2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or (3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony. 16-3-23.1. No duty to retreat prior to use of force in self-defense A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use force as provided in said Code sections, including deadly force. 16-3-24. Use of force in defense of property other than a habitation (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property:(1) Lawfully in his possession; (2) Lawfully in the possession of a member of his immediate family; or (3) Belonging to a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. (b) The use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to prevent trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property is not justified unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. 16-3-24.1. Habitation and personal property defined As used in Code Sections 16-3-23 and 16-3-24, the term "habitation" means any dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and "personal property" means personal property other than a motor vehicle. 16-3-24.2. Immunity from prosecution; exception A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, 16-3-23, 16-3-23.1, or 16-3-24 shall be immune from criminal prosecution therefor unless in the use of deadly force, such person utilizes a weapon the carrying or possession of which is unlawful by such person under Part 2 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of this title. 16-3-28. Affirmative defenses A defense based upon any of the provisions of this article is an affirmative defense. 16-12-129. Defense of self or others an absolute defense to violation under this part Defense of self or others, as contemplated by and provided for under Article 2 of Chapter 3 of this title, shall be an absolute defense to any violation under this part.

[@EternalDeath14]

Yeah Chapter 9 is a mess, I thought it was just me being a lay man. Something I always say, it might be legally right but not morally right and the standard for "reasonableness" in my opinion is what would a moral prudent person do.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Need Chapter 9 in Plain English!

[@DaveL9170]

The law you care about is GRAHAM VS CONOR. that’s the standard you need to give your viewers. Been a federal officers for almost three decades and that is the exact standard the SCOTUS tells police to use and that’s the standard that your viewers should also use. Anything less is legal negligence in my opinion. The reason I say this is because the carrier MUST show actual fear of death or great bodily harm. Conor shows us that standard from the court. Anything less and you’re likely looking at charges. And you’re guaranteed to be facing a 42 USC 1983 case. That’s virtually certain!!!! That’s basic info they taught us in the academy. You ARE getting sued the second you pull the trigger. Period. Your viewers need to know this. That’s why I have two different carrier insurances. Work and personal. I want a lot of coverage. It ain’t cheap but the minute I pull the trigger my life savings, house, 401k, college funds for kids….ALL GONE!!!

[@geckoproductions4128]

I would remind you that according to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Federal Agents are NOT peace officers in the State of Texas. Shut up and listen to the lawyers

[@mixter7x7]

just because you can - it doesn't mean you should. ability is not a demonstration of maturity, humanity or wisdom. lethally defending property is a double edge that raises legitimate questions. killing some kid for spray painting your car, egging your house or stealing your lawn mower- should get you put in prison. these things can be repaired and replaced. however - what about property that CANNOT be replaced ? like the gate at the McCloskey's home or windows in your house from the 19th century ? i am not attempting to justify killing people to protect material, but considering where lines would / should be drawn.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

There a line somewhere. Every case is different. Great points.

[@jerrysmith3516]

What if they can't be replaced at least not easily. Not everyone has money for insurance to replace things some people barely make it week to week on what they make and have to plan for every big purchase so do they have to just let there grass grow because they aren't allowed to defend their lawnmower from theft and can't afford another one. To me any use of force done to protect one's own property should be on the criminal not on the owner. People like to say it sucks but it is what good people have to do and my question is why shouldn't it suck for the criminal trust me there would be less criminals if they knew the law would not go after owners defending their property. Just look at what is happening now in different states those who have a revolving door for criminals vs those who actually prosecute them. Those who prosecute them have less crime.

[@mixter7x7]

@@jerrysmith3516 if i'm not mistaken - there are states ( texas ? ) that justify lethal force for property retention. there are others. again - refer to my initial statement. just because you can - it doesn't mean you should. you may note the states you described - cater to criminals , but also suppress the rights of the law abiding peaceful citizens not only as it applies to firearms but across the board - demonstrating their true motives which do not reflect the well being of the general population. any state office or authority that would protect criminals while suppressing and violating the rights of the law abiding majority population to exist in peace is an enemy of the people ( the people being the ACTUAL state ) as one of it's primary obligations implied as well as through most state's constitutions - is to provide for the safety of the general public.

[@CurtisHulme]

Would like to see both of you comment on the "Custody argument results in Lubbock, Texas man being shot to death, lawyer claims it was self-defense". The video is surfing around on the internet which shows the shooting in full. I am curious to see your comments and opinions on this?

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Great idea Curtis! Thanks for sharing.

[@estradamurcielgo175]

The difference between a Robbery and a Burglary is Use of Force or Threat of Force.....

[@mhughes1160]

Perhaps you could do a video on how much it is going to cost you for protecting that bicycle? Legal fees etc.

[@opencarry3860]

Should be a 24 hours a day law.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Love it!

[@simonsimon8572]

More laws to protect criminals

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Only the law-abusing have something to lose.

[@JustDefense]

Thanks.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Welcome!

[@2-old-Forthischet]

What criminal, I don't see anyone.

[@markusshelby3436]

ATTENTION! ATTENTION! Home Safes. Like many gun enthusiasts I have a full safe. If for some reason the police come into the home what happens? If a firearm was not involved what happens? If a firearm was involved, do they have rights or do they have to get a separate warrant? If so what are they allowed to confiscate ? (Expensive Antique firearms, gold, silver, ect.) ( And can they confiscate large quantities of ammo and if so what is considered a large quantity? And if the ammo is locked into a box insulated, and what constitutes as a safe? Thank you for your consideration.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Great topic for discussion thank you Markus!

[@markusshelby3436]

@@ArmedAttorneys thank you for your consideration. Here's the deal. I live in a mobile home park. 20 trailers up the hill a family of illegals put a generator inside their home and it killed them all. A person showed up to pick up the child to take to school and discovered them dead. Two police officers arrived, and a third one showed up even though there was somebody on top of the hill waving at him. I'm in seven they were in 25 doesn't even sound the same. He got out of his vehicle and walked straight into my home (unlocked door) my wife was getting ready for work and was half-dressed and putting makeup on. The policeman come in with a firearm yelling where are they! where are they! and when she couldn't answer he threatened to arrest her. He realized his mistake and left. It's all illegal, her son the lawyer tried to get the body cam footage and they wouldn't release it. No blood no foul. I have a world war I 1911(made in 1918), 3 lb of pure silver and an ounce and a half of pure gold amongst other weapons. Not counting another safe with a key no Tumblr. Full of ammunition. Hypothetically (((So what keeps the police officers from saying oh we have a new treasure box😍😍. We didn't find any antique firearm or pure gold or silver we just found a few junk guns.))) Then I come home my safe is gone my ammo safe is gone and nobody will give me an answers. What keeps him from saying they didn't find anything of value and give me back two empty boxes. Hypothetically speaking. Your advice thank you

[@rabibbibar6134]

would love to see a show on the gun laws in Massachusetts

[@flyoverkid55]

Imagine every possible cause to restrict citizens while empowering criminals, and you are well within those laws.

[@jamiegoguen7384]

Massachusetts: Someone breaks in at 2am, you have a handgun ready, they enter the bedroom and they are also armed. You shoot and kill. Now, in court, The defence asks " Why did you not exit a window, you were on a 1st floor ? " Yeah, here in Massachusetts ...

[@tinygnat]

Huh huh... You said "penal." Seriously though, it's nice to see your measured interpretations of the law in the face of so much crazy on KZbin along the lines of, "The sun went down, so I can stack and tag!" 😂 Keep up the good work!

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Thanks Justin! We appreciate your support.

[@markrigsby2380]

Self-defense of Life!

[@markrigsby2380]

@Jack Midtown They make it seem so complicated, like I need permission from a government to save my Life. Insanity.

[@bobdelorenzo6715]

Related question but a bit OT. As I understand it anytime lethal force is used a GJ decides the facts and either indicts, leading to a trial or they no bill meaning the facts don't warrant a prosecution. IF someone is involved in a lethal force shooting and the GJ no bills is that it forever? Barring any new evidence can the prosecutor or a new DA bring the matter back to a GJ? IOW, can this hang over someones head, legally, for the rest of their life?

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Very tough situation. There is typically no statute of limitations for murder (meaning charges may be brought at any time). If a case has been no billed once, the standard for re-presentment (varies by jurisdiction) is typically “new and material evidence.” So something the government didn’t have previously that significantly impacts the case.

[@bobdelorenzo6715]

@@ArmedAttorneys Ok, thank you. So the only time someone is 'off the hook' is after acquittal at trial? Like Kyle Rittenhouse.... correct?

[@ArmedAttorneys]

@@bobdelorenzo6715 virtually yes, there are a handful of other novel procedures out there but that covers 99% of them.

[@andymcgowan9819]

Either you all have limited wardrobes for lawyers, or you filmed these all the same day. ;)

[@tommypaul3153]

hi can you comet on the self defense case, in Lubbock Texas November 5 Kyle Carruth shoot and kills chad read. yes i do understand stand your ground but that look like he was a little quick on the draw. thanks

[@ArmedAttorneys]

We are on it Tommy, thank you!

[@nn431xru1]

Victims have no rights in these days and age. Jury system is archaic because of so called "unconscious bias". In other words, if the jurors are unconsciously bias, no matter how many instructions you give them, they are still bias. Therefore, the outcome of jury verdict is bias. The system needs to move to 5 judge panel who will consider only factual evidence without any emotional acting to sway the jury one way or the other. In addition, the crooks know you cannot hurt them for a property crime, so there is no deterrent factor. The idea of "rehabilitation" by counseling is also archaic. the system is ineffective on every level.

[@dd_ranchtexas4501]

d mx: Judges without bias???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Wise Latina..............etc.............

[@jerrysmith3516]

I don't agree while it is true jurors can be swayed it is also true there are people who still know the law and the jury system is the only thing that allows citizens to still have a say in what happens in the legal system. A five judge panel I would not say couldn't work it would obviously depend on the judges but it would leave citizens without any say which could end in disaster.

[@3Pillers]

👍

[@Hutzjohn]

I personally would not use deadly force to protect anything on the outside my home or on anyone outside (unless they are shooting in) but a break-in is totally different. Everything can be replace except life so in my mind don't shoot unless your life will end if you don't. So I believe baldwin should forfeit "ALL" his money to the son of the woman he killed.

[@zh3401]

Can you address getting an attourney on retainer to defend you in the event of a shooting? What are the alternatives and is there a "insurance" or protection plan you can recommend? What to look for in choosing carry insurance?

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Its a great question Z H. We actually get asked this question a lot. We work closely with one such company. Because of ethical rules, we cannot promote or recommend a product. We can say they all are created equally, and you should do your research!

[@klah2u]

USCCA membership can include attorney representation

[@TemplarMedic]

Sooo…hypothetically, if I get “robbed” and clotheslined 30 minutes after sunset, I have a better chance of surviving the jury than if I shoot the guy in my driveway stealing the bicycle?

[@thatguy7085]

You can’t see if someone is armed at night… so it makes sense.

[@hughwoatmeigh6999]

Which sunset/sunrise? Civil? Nautical? Astronomical? They all have slightlydifferenttimes. (Joke aside, this will absolutely matter at some point in the future. I assume Civil.)

[@dogfacesailor]

Test your audience's visual cognition.... Change it up and WEAR YOUR FAVORITE TEAM'S or generic SPORT JERSEY. and watch the thread.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

That's very funny.

[@MangoMike316]

👍👍👍

[@ArmedAttorneys]

👍👍👍

[@vaughnslavin9784]

Thank you! I tend to think, does the crime merit the death of the perpetrator?

[@lanceroberthough1275]

And even if somehow you were legally justified in using deadly force during acts of theft or criminal mischief, would you really want to unless it was absolutely necessary?

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Great point Lance!

[@nn431xru1]

how do you define absolutely necessary? People have right to protect what they worked hard for...in many cases...their entire life. and they should part with it because somebody's subjective opinion is that it was not necessary? To the victim it may be absolutely necessary to protect his/her property.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

@@nn431xru1 my thought process- is this worth potentially spending the rest of my life in prison over.

[@MikeNaples]

@@nn431xru1 It's a good question. If an intruder breaks into my home during darkness, I consider it absolutely necessary. If someone is trying to steal my unoccupied parked car, not so much.

[@jerrysmith3516]

@@MikeNaples What if the car is your only way to work and without it you will lose your job and not be able to provide food and shelter for yourself and possibly a family. Should you have to become homeless because the criminal has more rights to your property than you have to defend it.

[@vinces6724]

Does this law apply ONLY on your own property? What if it's taking place at my neighbor's house or down the street in the Dollar General store?

[@CORNDODGER]

EVERY BULLET THAT MISSES ITS TARGET HAS A LAWYER TIED TO IT

[@ArmedAttorneys]

You’re not kidding!

[@dd_ranchtexas4501]

David Reed: Now days even the ones that DON"T miss. Ask Kyle.................

[@geckoproductions4128]

Wait a minute....so if I start shooting the HS cheerleaders that are hanging toilet paper in my trees to play a prank on my football player son, I'm not justified? (honey, hold my beer and watch this!)

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news…

[@OhioGentlemenArms]

In Ohio I believe you have you to prove your life was under threat

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Ohio falls in the majority when it comes to theft (non-person) crimes.

[@deepstatearmory]

Im reading 9.43 and thats protection of third person's property. did you mean 9.42? maybe i missed something.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Wow you are right we say 9.43 in the video. Meant to say 9.42 . Sorry for the confusion!

[@deepstatearmory]

@@ArmedAttorneys Time to edit your video ! no worries, it was a simple mistake. Great video

[@luisc3682]

So that means, I only can shot my tannerite gnomes in my yard just during the night?🚷🤣

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Awesome. Ha!

[@gio5099]

So, the state should pay for all damages that are done by thugs, since they want to prohibit protecting our property.

[@ronnydowdy7432]

Legalese

[@saillaw2]

I love you guys, but i think you need a Patron account or a go fund me so we can get you some new shirts.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

You asked for it! kzbin.info?event=channel_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbjBoUGxab2p6ME5HZE1lLUJFUjRRYTJiYXVDZ3xBQ3Jtc0trcEhMZFlMZ1M5S0dVTHNsQWlXNW05cDUxSW1TZUlCdVRudzFtWnZkTUhyZjJKMGJyY3JHekJxazZGeGRQVVlpclJUTUFyWVZnREtySHQxZGJxZ1MtLUxWN0ljRldkU2lKc2l0eDQ5c2JuOHdoWWZ6MA&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2FArmedAttorneys&html_redirect=1

[@texastwosteppin1680]

it should be justified for every second of every god damn day i work hard for my shit

[@wipatriot510]

Ambiguous at best...

[@rogerlewis5815]

🇨🇱👍

[@danielgoodman3578]

Oooooohhh!

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Thanks for swinging by Daniel!

[@swde4793]

I LoVe You Guys But I had to Dislike the Video.....Too Much of a subject for a Short Video... what I Mean Is that this Video May be More Confusing than Obvious. Reason being this May lead Someone to 2nd guess themselves in a Quick Moment Of Judgement Calls....And What if it Leads them To Hesitate leading to an Unfortunate Situation for A Property Owner Resulting In harm To them. And I personally feel the Law Is A Good Law Being that this Is A GOOD Deterant for Criminals Knowing Damn Well They Will Not Have a Chance for Due Process.

[@ArmedAttorneys]

We appreciate the feedback-good, bad, or otherwise. Thank you- we’re always trying to improve for y’all.

[@swde4793]

@@ArmedAttorneys Y'all Really are Amazing Thank you for What you do. Both KZbin and In your Practice🙏

[@elfinmagic3111]

ok not into shooting kids but say you come out to stop them and then they assault you, multiple strong young people can make short work of old peoples, what then.

[@MrJimmy-fl2bn]

I don’t see how shooting someone for spray painting something at night is justified.

[@johnmirbach2338]

😎👍👌✌🖖😁

[@ArmedAttorneys]

They John, thanks for stopping by!

[@lazib008el5]

holy smokes!! are all Texas women this gorgeous? (hope my question doesn't get me into legal hot water)

[@dd_ranchtexas4501]

Lazib008 El: Not all, but the ugly ones voted for BBB (Broken Brain Biden)....

[@lazib008el5]

@@dd_ranchtexas4501 I think I’d like your Ranch!! ( . ) ( . )

[@dd_ranchtexas4501]

@@lazib008el5 Great! Gonna come and fix my #&%$&# tractor for me? Well, Thanks anyway; have a great virus free year......

[@micaKTM1290]

I have one problem with this channel. Richard looks exactly like a person I know and really, really do not like. I am struggling to get past it. lol

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Give peace a chance.

[@gonavy1]

👍

[@ArmedAttorneys]

Thanks Navy!