Replies

Relevant points of Texas law:

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

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:

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(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.

Take a good, hard look at the build and size differences between the shooter and the overly aggressive meathead jock that got shot.

And that’s before I go into the actual self defense laws.

I was making an evaluation of what seems like self defense to me. Now if Texas law were to in fact read that anybody who shoots anybody for any reason at all it is always self defense, this would not change what seems like self defense to me. Rather I would say that some of the cases that the laws of Texas call self defense do not seem like self defense to me.

So to my point even the laws of self defense were not relevant, much less the laws of protecting property. It is possible perhaps that no charges are applicable under the property law you cite independent of whether charges are applicable under self defense laws.

However, taking your advice I read what you posted carefully. My layman's analysis of it, for what its worth it seems that the protection of property clause would not apply to the shooter. Specifically because the criteria in 9.42 (3) (B) was not met. It doesn't even seem close.