[AndyTheBear]

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.

[Spktyr]

Sorry, no. Unless the homeowner was a trained martial artist of some prowess, Texas courts would look at the obvious discrepancies between the musculature, frame and overall build between the two and determine that the much smaller and slighter homeowner would reasonably expect that if he engaged in hand to hand he would die or suffer grievous bodily harm. This has been case law for longer than I have been alive.

Texas law is *not* fond of adults who indulge in juvenile physical intimidation of smaller adults.

[Kevmo]

9.42 (3) (B) was not met.
***The standard is a “reasonable person” standard. That would be what passes for a reasonable person in Texas, so there are no charges even filed, not even for misdemeanor stuff like reckless endangerment.

Having thought about this, a reasonable person who had already fired a warning shot which was ignored might think the guy’s gonna go for your gun and succeed. All the defending attorney has to do is bring that up, he’ll be found not guilty.