[WL-law]

You're correct. Nothing seems to take.

And apparently -- I'm resigned to say you simply can't read, based on your last response. The discussion -- which I BOLDED for you, for God's sake, so you could easily find it! --discusses the GENERAL principle of defense of property. It OCCURS, incidentally, in a case involving spring guns -- BECAUSE the facts provide a clear case for the GENERAL principle -- although it's apparently over your head.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

discusses the GENERAL principle of defense of property

Wrong, it discusses a general principle, one that does no apply everywhere like you claim. Are you still holding to your position on Texas law or are you finally willing to admit you are wrong?

[Crowcreek]

The "spring-gun", or "set-gun" is an example of a booby-trap set for a trespasser. This is an illegal device. It is not related to defense of property except through motive. That's part of the reason it's used as a textbook example. (WL: Good luck with this.)

BTW: Lethal force is justified when someone tries to take your gun. But again, there would be a trial -- and the jury might be your only chance for a fair outcome. Expect your life to get very complicated and expensive if you ever have to use deadly force for any reason.

[Shooter 2.5]

The spring gun verdict you cited has nothing to do with this case. REPEAT, NOTHING.

You're wrong about Texas's Defence of Property just as you are wrong about this case.

The prosecuting attorney in the case we are discussing was already found to be just as wrong for taking the two men to trial. It was a waste of the taxpayer's money to advance her agenda.

I suggest you talk to a real lawyer.