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.
Back when I got my CCL, the instructor was a police officer. I had this same discussion with him. According to the instructor, the DA would use clause 3(A) of the deadly force portion if he wanted to go after you.
He framed it this way: did you have insurance to replace the stolen Item? Could you have called the police to have them stop the thief? Could you reasonably have gone to the police and let them investigate? Keep in mind that it is a lawyer’s job to twist the law into what he wants it to mean.
I will grant you that most places in Texas adhere to the law as it is written and intended. That being said, I would not want to shoot at a fleeing criminal in liberal El Paso, or ultra-liberal Austin. I have little doubt that those DA’s will go after you knowing a conviction won’t stand just to break you financially.