I do not find Criminal Law all that logical either when it comes to outcomes. It seems to depend for many cases on who is really good at plea bargaining.

Not sure how much the woman's having a bruised head would have on the outcome of a case like this.

Based on this thread, I believe some people have too much time on their hands

Discussion of crimes on this forum will always end up with a debate about gun control. and when someone says this is not a political discussion you can be certain it is.

What he said, you can't shoot someone in the back because he knocked you down and stole personal property, The system will not allow it, I don't care who your lawyer is.

I hope not, I would feel naked without a several guns and a few thousand rounds of ammo.

That depends upon which system you are talking about.

Texas Law on Use of Deadly Force to Protect Property

I like that law.

Strange caveat in that law. Can only shoot them at nighttime.

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.

I don't deal in hypotheticals!!

As Sgt Joe Friday says, "just the facts mame". :D

Woulda, coulda, shoulda, but nobody did!!!!!!

A blow to the head can render one so dazed that he acts from instinct or prior training rather than from reasoned thought. Great defense.

I think this just further suggests it would come down to a prosecutor, an attorney, and a jury. No hard and fast.

A fourth scenario. Same as others except shot misses mugger and hits 70ish year old man stealing 40 doggy doo doo bags...richochets off his elbow and strikes man letting dog drink from human fountain. This fellow drops dog who grabs mugger by the ankle effecting apprehension and arrest.

Add to that the dog biting the mugger, and the thief sues the 70ish-year-old man. Dog is impounded.

This is the correct legal answer.

Only if a jury says so.

This was a very good discussion AND it did not evolve to politics or to any form of gun control.

Personally, I would go with the posters who said if a robber is running away from you, shooting at him is wrong and you are responsible for deaths or injuries caused by your bullet. Carl In Tampa raises excellent points, too.