The law is a good bit more complicated than simply being able to shoot a fleeing felon, and nighttime enters into only one part of that law--the one dealing with criminal mischief.
It's more complicated even than the section of law quoted earlier in the thread. If you look at the first part of the quote, you will note that in order to use deadly force, force must first be justified, and that part of the law is not listed in the quote. The "ands" go all the way back to section 9.41...and 9.41 comes with another set of conditions that must be satisfied.
So here goes based on my non-expert reading of the law...
IF the deliveryman (DM) was dispossessed of money (or other property, but I'm going to stick with money to keep it simple).
AND if that dispossession was accomplished by force used by the criminal against the DM.
AND if the DM reasonably believed that force was immediately necessary to recover the property.
AND if the DM used the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after robbery.
AND if the DM reasonably believes that the money
cannot be recovered by any other means or that the use of force other than deadly force to recover the money would expose the DM or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
THEN the DM would be justified in the use of deadly force.
BUT ONLY
when and to the degree the DM reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent the robber from escaping after the aggravated robbery with the money.
Note that force and deadly force are both mentioned and that they are not the same thing. Also note that "reasonably believes" figures into the equation heavily. It's used repeatedly throughout the text of the law. "Immediately necessary" is another tough one. Not just reasonable belief, but immediate necessity.
There are a lot of real sticking points that are not apparent here. Here's one. Let's say that his boss has told him that if the DM's tip money is stolen the store will repay him. Also the boss has told him that if someone steals the store's money just to let it go.
Now he's in a world of hurt. See, he is going to recover his money from the store so he couldn't reasonably have believed that there was no other way to recover his money. But what about the store's money, you ask? Another sticky point. Since the boss told him to let it go, that means that the DM knows that his boss wouldn't try to use deadly force to retrieve the stolen money. And you can't use deadly force to recover someone else's property in TX unless (you guessed it) you reasonably believe that they would do so if they were in your position.
It's worth noting that TX law specifically states that, even when deadly force is legally justified, that does not hinder the right or ability of the person who has deadly force used on them to sue in civil court.
"CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit."
See, isn't reading the penal code fun?
