Apparently, in Texas, if someone steals my stuff at night (or burgles it at any time) and tries to run away, I can blow them away - as long as I have reasonable belief that I cannot get my stuff back otherwise.
Wow. This seems a bit harsh.
On the other hand, if you steal stuff while in Texas, and try to run away while being aware that you are in Texas then, fug, you are just too dumb to live, and the shooter does you and all of humanity in favor by putting a Smith & Wesson .50 round between your shoulder blades (or in your neck if he is a really good shooter).
Side question: is there a morally significant difference between between shooting a fleeing burglar with a Smith & Wesson .50 caliber, or a Desert Eagle .50 caliber?
How about a nice but reasonably priced antique like the Nagant M1895 revolver, my own personal favorite - one of the most accurate revolvers ever built (but a bugger to reload!)? Unlike the .50 caliber hand-cannons, the target has a pretty good chance to survive given prompt medical care, but if they do croak, there is a good chance it will be much more painful than with the larger guns.
Why not use something a little more substantial, like a minigun?
Most people in civilised countries allow the law to assess levels of doubt and mitigation for crimes because they do not consider summary execution a valid and proportionate response.
Given this Texas law, as you state it, it would be lawful from you to shoot me in the face with a Kalashnikov because I stole a french-fry from your plate.
I image that the law does not use the term "blow them away". Does it allow for a more moderated response such as 'stop them'?
One might be inclined to suggest a weapon that would not automatically kill but slow down.