# In Texas you can shoot a prostitute for $150 **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 7, 2013, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365 "2013-06-07T08:44:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/21 "2013-06-07T15:27:05Z")
> [@babygoat666](#): > > This is perverse. Maybe this is a stupid question, but do Texans not value life? Yes, it is a stupid question. Very stupid, actually. We value life. What we don’t value are burglars and thieves. The actual text of the Texas Penal Code reads as follows. 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. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/22 "2013-06-07T15:36:21Z")
In other words - no. ---
**Author:** ![RobDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f07891/32.png) [@RobDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RobDog)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/23 "2013-06-07T15:37:10Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Yes, it is a stupid question. Very stupid, actually. We value life. What we don’t value are burglars and thieves. > > The actual text of the Texas Penal Code reads as follows. > > 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. Is it just me or does the addition of “nighttime” to the above seem curiously inexact? Surely this leaves too much open to interpretation. I mean is “nighttime” after dark, after 7pm, 9pm, after the evening news? Is “nighttime” perhaps defined elsewhere in the penal code? ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/24 "2013-06-07T15:39:15Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Yes, it is a stupid question. Very stupid, actually. We value life. What we don’t value are burglars and thieves. > > The actual text of the Texas Penal Code reads as follows. > > 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. To me, a non-Texan, that reads as “yes, life might be valued, but not as much as Sony Vaio or a PS2”. Either that person leaves with the property and lives or we are legally allowing you to kill a person to make sure the property doesn’t get away. Also, why the weird line of “nighttime”. Is dusk or dawn ok too? Also, couldn’t criminal mischief be toilet papering one’s house? That’s a shootin’. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/25 "2013-06-07T15:42:30Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Yes, it is a stupid question. Very stupid, actually. We value life. What we don’t value are burglars and thieves. And what is your opinion about this case and the jury’s decision? ---
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/26 "2013-06-07T15:50:29Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Yes, it is a stupid question. Very stupid, actually. We value life. What we don’t value are burglars and thieves. Would you be OK with the death penalty for a convicted thief? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/27 "2013-06-07T15:56:30Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Yes, it is a stupid question. Very stupid, actually. We value life. What we don’t value are burglars and thieves. Do you feel that in this particular case the person qualified as a thief? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/28 "2013-06-07T16:00:03Z")
Or, to look at it another way, suppose the woman had shot the man. And then defended herself by saying he wanted to have sex with her (true) and she wasn’t consenting to the sex (also true). So she shot him to defend herself from a rape. Not a complete picture of what happened but I’d say it was as accurate a description as claiming it was a robbery. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/29 "2013-06-07T16:00:53Z")
> [@nate](#): > > Would you be OK with the death penalty for a convicted thief? In fairness, one can distinguish between the use of deadly force to recover stolen property and its use as a punishment following conviction. In the former case, the death of the thief is incidental to the recovery of property, which is the legitimate interest of the victim; the victim is remedying an actual harm to himself. In the case of the death penalty, the thief has already been convicted, and the stolen property either recovered or deemed irrecoverable; the death of the thief has nothing to do with making the victim whole. Now, I think both cases are disgusting; it’s absurd to kill someone over property, and it’s disgusting for the State to kill someone in their custody at all. But I could see an argument for the Texas law, but against the death penalty for theft, that is not internally inconsistent. ---
**Author:** ![babygoat666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2acd7d/32.png) [@babygoat666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/babygoat666)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/30 "2013-06-07T16:04:17Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Yes, it is a stupid question. Very stupid, actually. We value life. What we don’t value are burglars and thieves. > > The actual text of the Texas Penal Code reads as follows. > > 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. All I learned from that is that you value property. You could have just said “no”. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/31 "2013-06-07T16:07:52Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > The actual text of the Texas Penal Code reads as follows. > > 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. So if I get pickpocketed at night for $1 by a thief who starts to runs away, I can shoot to kill him? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/32 "2013-06-07T16:08:51Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It’s not theft, either. He gave her the money willingly, and since there could not be a legal contract involved the only other possibility is that it was a gift. In reaching this conclusion, did you consider Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(b)(1)? It seems to me that it supports the opposite conclusion. He didn’t give her the money “willingly,” because consent is not effective if it is induced by deception. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(3)(A). “Deception” means: > [@](#): > > …creating or confirming by words or conduct a false impression of law or fact that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction, and that the actor does not believe to be true… or > [@](#): > > …failing to correct a false impression of law or fact that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction, that the actor previously created or confirmed by words or conduct, and that the actor does not now believe to be true… Can you explain how you reached the opposite conclusion? ---
**Author:** ![shijinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@shijinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shijinn)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/33 "2013-06-07T16:09:24Z")
does that mean you can kill someone and just plant your wallet on him? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/34 "2013-06-07T16:10:58Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Also, why the weird line of “nighttime”. Is dusk or dawn ok too? Also, couldn’t criminal mischief be toilet papering one’s house? That’s a shootin’. I’ve been searching the Texas Penal Code and so far have found no definition of “nighttime.” Maybe they use the “black thread/white thread” test. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/35 "2013-06-07T16:14:28Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Or, to look at it another way, suppose the woman had shot the man. And then defended herself by saying he wanted to have sex with her (true) and she wasn’t consenting to the sex (also true). So she shot him to defend herself from a rape. > > Not a complete picture of what happened but I’d say it was as accurate a description as claiming it was a robbery. It certainly wasn’t a robbery. But it was theft. We’re all clear on the distinction, yes? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/36 "2013-06-07T16:15:41Z")
If I ever get ambitious enough to become a world-dominating supervillain, and I need to blow up a state to demonstrate my new moon laser to a disbelieving public, Texas will be the one. I know there are some decent people there, but what an irredeemably awful place. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/37 "2013-06-07T16:15:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In reaching this conclusion, did you consider Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(b)(1)? > > It seems to me that it supports the opposite conclusion. > > He didn’t give her the money “willingly,” because consent is not effective if it is induced by deception. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(3)(A). “Deception” means: > > or > > Can you explain how you reached the opposite conclusion? Well, lucky for that guy, he doesn’t have to even prove deception. “Hey, let me get some condoms first at the store with the money you just gave me”-“Nah, I’ll just shoot you instead” could just be taken care of without clogging up the courts. Or do we know that “here’s $150 and we will have the beej in a week when those sores clear up” defense. Since we don’t know the dead’s side of the story, we really don’t know if deception was caused or not. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/38 "2013-06-07T16:16:47Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > To me, a non-Texan, that reads as “yes, life might be valued, but not as much as Sony Vaio or a PS2”. Either that person leaves with the property and lives or we are legally allowing you to kill a person to make sure the property doesn’t get away. > > Also, why the weird line of “nighttime”. Is dusk or dawn ok too? Also, couldn’t criminal mischief be toilet papering one’s house? That’s a shootin’. I agree, it’s troubling. I don’t think anyone should be killed for stealing, whether it’s $150 or $150,000 or $1.50. Also it does seem vaguely worded to me. I don’t understand why it would be okay to shoot someone who steals your iPhone at 11PM, but not at 11AM. According to Wikipedia (which I realize could be wrong) TPing counts as vandalism if property damage occurs. And vandalism does count as criminal mischief. So it does sound like you could lay out a good defense for shooting and killing teenagers who are TPing your house. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/39 "2013-06-07T16:17:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In reaching this conclusion, did you consider Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(b)(1)? > > It seems to me that it supports the opposite conclusion. > > He didn’t give her the money “willingly,” because consent is not effective if it is induced by deception. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(3)(A). “Deception” means: > or > Can you explain how you reached the opposite conclusion? Easily. Not having proper legal training on how to access and interpret laws, I formed an opinion as a layman. “]In reaching this conclusion, did you consider Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(b)(1)?” indeed. :rolleyes: Am I supposed to crawl away in shame because I’m not a lawyer now? ---
**Author:** ![RobDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f07891/32.png) [@RobDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RobDog)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/40 "2013-06-07T16:18:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It certainly wasn’t a robbery. > > But it was theft. > > We’re all clear on the distinction, yes? Does it matter _that_ much though, as the relevant part of the penal code seems to cover robbery **and** theft? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365.md?page=3)