[FreedomCalls]

He went outside after them when 911 had told him to stay put. No life was threatened when he acted

It doesn't matter that his life was not threatened. In Texas you are fully justified in the use of deadly force to protect your property from theft in the night and you can also use deadly force to protect someone else's proptery from theft in the night.

From the Texas Penal Code concerning the use of deadly force to protect property:

§ 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:

(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.

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property

[beaversmom]

Mr. Horn mentions that they were doing this in the “broad daylight”. Do you know how this affects it?

[LonePalm]

I wish we could import that bit of law to NJ.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[Syllojism]

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.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I’m not sure how this case will be resolved in court. Even if the Texas court acquits, the feds may step in with a federal charge (remember Gilmer Hernandez, who was cleared by the Texas Rangers but then Sutton stepped in and prosecuted anyway?)

OTOH, there is some concern that under other circumstances innocent people may be shot. Suppose that you tell me to watch your house while you are gone, but forget to tell me that some people are coming to pick up something. They start to carry it out and I point a shotgun at them and order them not to move. They run — maybe they think I am a random lunatic — and I kill them. I honestly believed that they were stealing from your house, pretty much like the neighbor in this story, but in my case I was mistaken about what they were doing.

My question is not what Texas law says, but what the law should be.