Originally Posted by uphunter08

meh. The problem is that it's entirely subjective. Most people aren't qualified to make law enforcement decision on somebody else's property, much less their own (because it's more emotionally based if it's your stuff). Perfect example:

I come across a stand laying in the woods that someone else had attempted to steal (perhaps they heard the owner approaching and ditched the stand at the last minute so they wouldn't get caught). I pick it up with the intention of turning it over to law enforcement in order to get it back to the rightful owner. On the way out of the woods, i come across pissed-off halfbaked who mistakenly thinks that i'm the one the stole his stand...and he shoots me in the back 'because that's the way we handle things in texas!'

even in texas, you're likely going to go to jail and face a civil suit. If a le officer discharges his weapon, there's a lengthy investigation into the circumstances. You don't think there would be something similar in this instance? You're a fool if you think you can just shoot someone and justify doing so over a petty property crime. Even in texas.

that is why castle laws are restricted entirely to home invasion and immediate threats to person and property. There is no imminent threat when someone is walking away with your property. It's also why many people are (successfully) sued in states like texas when they're taken the castle law to extremes, like halfbake suggests. The issue of reasonable measures comes into play. Go ahead and shoot someone in the back, halfbaked, and see if you don't have your ass sued off over it. Even in texas. Get a grip. As satisfying as it might be for you to handle it yourself, vigilantism gets society nowhere over the long term.

Unless they're actually pointing a weapon at you, let law enforcement deal with it.