Thanks, your analysis mirrors the analysis of the court perfectly in both cases. The facts of the original case: "It is undisputed that on October 26, 1971 at approximately 11:00 p.m. Robert Howsley, who was eighteen years of age, was engaged in attempting to steal a battery from Dr. Gilliam's car. The car was parked in the driveway of Dr. Gilliam's home. Harlan Gilliam, Dr. Gilliam's minor son, heard a noise in the front yard, looked out and saw someone attempting to open the hood of his father's car. He informed his father of what he had seen. Dr. Gilliam obtained a .22 rifle from a closet and went upstairs to his son's room to observe from a window. Dr. Gilliam's position at the window was approximately thirty feet from the event he was observing. Though it was dark, Dr. Gilliam was able to perceive the shadowy figure of a person bent over the engine compartment of his automobile. He saw this person lift the battery out of the car, set it down in front of the car, and close the hood. At this time Dr. Gilliam decided to fire a warning shot at the intruder's feet in order to apprehend him and to keep him from running away. The rifle shot, however, which traveled the approximate thirty-foot distance, struck Howsley in the head, killing him instantly." The family of the 18yr old sued Dr. Gilliam in civil court for negligent/wrongful death. Both the trial court and court of appeals granted summary judgment to Dr. Gilliam based on the "theft at night" rule under discussion. The Texas Supreme Court then overturned that ruling using the analysis that a warning shot was negligent. However, let's look at the facts. The distance was 30' (10yds) and Dr. Gilliam claimed to be shooting at the man's feet and instead hit him in the head? Does that sound plausible to you? Do you think the court considered it? In the second case, the shooter was breaking into cars left at a Bennigan's parking lot when the car owners returned. Rightly upset at the damaged steering column and broken window, they beat the shooter and proceeded to damage his car in retaliation as well as stealing his tires and car radio. The shooter retrieved a gun and came back to the scene and shot several of his theft victims. During his appeal, he claimed both self-defense and defense of property. He was denied the self-defense claims because the court determined he had no reasonable fear of death or serious injury. He was denied the defense of property at night because the court reasoned that one of the men had his car disabled and was unable to flee with the property and so the jury could have rationally believed that deadly force was not necessary to prevent escape with property. Note the part in bold because it is real relevant to the discussion here. You have accurately characterized and applied the law and clearly know what you are talking about. It seems to me the tricky part is the "the jury could have found" part. That is the part where things can get dicey. Assuming, the "he was going for something" defense doesn't hold up, could the grand jury in thithe beer case decide that deadly force wasn't necessary to prevent the escape with the property? That maybe calling the police might have been a more prudent option? I think 9.22(2) doesn't offer a lot of reassurance on that point. The final point I would make is that the trend in Texas law seems to be limiting the use of the "theft/criminal mischief at night" defense, not expanding it. Both of the cases I mentioned were the most recent appellate level cases I could find on that subject and both found reasons (albeit generally acceptable ones) not to allow the defense. You have to go back to the 1940s to find an appellate court upholding the defense. That seems to suggest to me that the trend in the future is likely to be a narrower view of this law.