As multiple posts show, in Texas you can use deadly force to defend someone else’s property. That law predated the “castle doctrine”, which addressed a different problem.
My comment was in response to the ‘legislator who authored the bill’ speaking out against the situation and how it was handled. I’ve had neighbors that I would protect. I’ve had neighbors where I would just scare them away. The concept here seems to be (from the legislator) that no one can protect his or her property but themselves.
Yes, it's true, but ONLY IF:
The other guy ASKED you to defend said property, AND
the deadly force is IMMEDIATELY necessary to prevent escape, and you reasonably believe there is NO OTHER alternative than deadly force, or that using anything LESS than deadly force would pose a serious risk to your safety.
"Boom, you're dead" doesn't sound like the words of a man who fears for his life and safety or has no other alternative to halt the escape than to pull the trigger, it sounds like a line from a B-grade action flick.
And I doubt it'll play well with a jury.