***This is not legal advice.*** Here is the relevant section of the Texas Penal Code: Sec. 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. In practice, though, you would be hard pressed to mount a successful defense in court. With the availability of various forms of personal and homeowner's insurance covering property loss at reasonable rates, I'd reason that a jury would deem a shooting as unnecessary. Why shoot the fleeing felon when you could call your insurance rep to file a claim? [EDIT] Texas now has its own version of "Castle Doctrine", the legal theory or enacted law that says a person on their own property does not have a legal duty to retreat in the face of aggression. [EDIT] In short, protect your property with an insurance policy, not a firearm. Even if a property replacement policy cost you $100/month, it still beats $80,000 in legal fees, time spent in the lockup, disruption of your personal and professional life, and lost wages. Personally, no item of property is worth the life of the goblin taking it.