I think you’re incorrect about being legally able to use deadly force to protect another’s property. The law you quoted requires that 9.41 be satisfied first, and 9.41 specifically states that you must either be in lawful possession of the property or you’ve just been unlawfully dispossessed of it. Either way, the biggest legal problem is going to be the fact that you’re only justified in using necessary force, and he’s on tape saying he’s going to go shoot first and ask questions later, and the guys were unarmed.
You don't think the neighbor was in lawful possession of the property in his house?
Either way, the biggest legal problem is going to be the fact that you’re only justified in using necessary force, and he’s on tape saying he’s going to go shoot first and ask questions later, and the guys were unarmed.
The statute allows deadly force "to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property."