[WL-law]

Here's the problem with your argument under the statute -- the statute says you can use the force "reasonably necessary", and the reasonableness in your instance is based on the threat of physical injury, based on the fact that the guy was holding a hammer.

So this is REALLY an argument for self defense, not defense of property -- the reference to property is irrelevant. You can ALWAYS defend yourself against an attack with reasonable force -- that's the basis of self-defense.

Whereas my spring gun hypo is the clearest example of pure defense-of-property with no "complication" of self-defense mixed in.

My argument here has always been on the notion that DEFENSE OF PROPERTY permits lethal force.

Now I think the Texas statute pushes the outer limit of the envelope, but it is still under the umbrella of self defense. For example, you can use deadly force to prevent an arson. Well, arson could easily kill someone -- the arsonist could be presumed not to know that a building is uninhabited -- and the arsonist endangers the life of the fireman as well. So I'm not convinced that the statute, in that instance, is really protecting PROPERTY as its focus, in the allowance of lethal force. Now, theft in the nighttime may be a different matter -- depends on what the formal elements of that crime are, i.e., whether the statute mentions a domicile, as opposed to a general reference to theft.

[Shooter 2.5]

The statute of defence of property is not under self defense. Texas law allows the defense of property even when the suspect is running away.

Read the statute.