[WL-law]

3. he reasonably believes that:

A. the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

you cite this part of the statute, but the other parts are connected by "ANDS", not "ORS", so this is not a stand-alone basis to assert lethal force -- every part of the statute must be satisfied for the right to attach. I suggest you re-read with that in mind.

[Shooter 2.5]

Texas Penal Code 9.42 - Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

3. he reasonably believes that:

A. the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

[Shooter 2.5]

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY[It was the two guys property]

§ 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property[It was their property]

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.[The dead guy was trespassing]

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
[Burglar stealing moveable property]
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
[The dead guy had no right to be there and there's that pesky "OR" again
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
[He was using a hammer]
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

§ 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
[See the other section]
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
[The guy was approaching with a hammer]
(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
[It was a burglary and a theft at night]
(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
[Buglary and theft at night]
(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
[They were threatened with a hammer and there's that pesky "OR' you're ignoring]
(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.
[Serious bodily injury from the hammer]
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

[ArrogantBustard]

What year of law school are you in at Washington and Lee?