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.
So, daytime theft of a converter from a car parked outside wouldn’t qualify I don’t think.
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".
I’ve thought about this too. They often vary from state to state as well. But the alternative would be to create new legal terms, which would be more confusing, or use just use numbers, which would be hard for laypeople to discuss.
Well, compare homicide, which in popular culture is divided into "murder in the first degree", "murder in the second degree", and "murder in the third degree" alternately known as "manslaughter".
It's not clear to me whether you consider those "new legal terms" or "just using numbers", since in my eyes they are terms invented for the purpose of the law, distinguished from each other by numbers.
But they appear to be superior to the division between "burglary", "robbery", and "theft" either way. They have no preexisting meaning (unlike "burglary" and "robbery", which are used in spite of existing contradictory meaning) and they cause no difficulties in discussing the crimes, which we can be certain of because these terms already exist and people discuss them all the time.
In the Texas penal code, homicide is actually divided into "murder", "capital murder", "manslaughter", and "criminally negligent homicide".
These are clearly "new terms" rather than "numbers". They seem pretty straightforward: "murder" is defined in harmony with its natural English-language meaning. "Capital murder" is a variety of murder that allows for capital punishment. "Manslaughter" is homicide caused recklessly rather than intentionally, and is in harmony with the popular understanding of the word "manslaughter". And "criminally negligent homicide" is homicide caused negligently rather than intentionally, and that's also in harmony with the normal construction of noun phrases in English.
If we were instead to give those four categories names that nobody without special training was even capable of distinguishing from one another -- as Texas has already done for "burglary", "robbery", and "theft" -- what would improve? I submit that that would make some things worse while making nothing better.
Compare also the popular-culture division between "assault" and "assault with a deadly weapon". What would giving those two crimes synonymous names accomplish?
New York also has five degrees of arson: https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article150.php
They're not at all fully interchangeable, just many Americans have a poor grasp of the English language.
I would wager that for the majority English speakers, the words "theft", "robbery", and (to a lesser degree) "burglary" or more or less fully interchangeable.
They may not be interchangeable in law, but the usage of English in law is famously not always in line with common usage, which is why we have "legalese" which many completely fluent and native English speakers may have trouble understanding without specialized legal training.
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
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.
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
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?
For example, imagine that someone gets really drunk, stumbles into your home, collapses on your couch, and soaks it in urine. Hours later, you come home and find him sleeping it off.
Under Texas law, whether this is "burglary" depends on the value of your couch.
Suppose you've got a very fancy couch. It was "burglary". Any local newspaper is free to refer to that guy as having been convicted of burglary (assuming he gets prosecuted). But this is clearly a miscarriage of justice; no one in the world would consider that "burglary", and coverage using that term should be defamatory.
In general, if you seek to define new terms, they should actually be new terms. Redefining terms people already know has downsides, but not upsides.
(Did this happen in Texas?)
Shooting someone inside a car will undoubtedly make a mess! Did he drag the thief out of the car ASAP afterwards, did the guy run off, or what?
My actions would likely depend on how fond I was of the car:
New Tesla - try talking the guy out of the car,
1971 (maybe any year) Volvo wagon - shoot him dead, etc.
> theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.
Seems like that qualifies
Is this true in any context other than a potential fourth amendment violation by an agent of the state?
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.