TexasCHLforum.com

Technically, it was not a civil matter. Taking money from a person without their effective consent is theft under PC 31.03. Section 31.01 defines effective consent and specifically says that it is not consent if the permission was induced by fraud. Section 31.02 says that the charge of theft includes a bunch of other previously separate charges including theft by false pretext and swindling.

So it was theft. Chapter 9 allows deadly force to prevent the other from fleeing with the property after a theft at night. So it might be justified, but (and with the law there is always a but) the main question left is was it reasonable. He had to reasonably believe that the force was necessary to prevent the other from fleeing and that there was no other way to stop him.

I think that is going to be a hard row to hoe for the shooter. I have not heard anything about the shooter being on parole but that means he was a felon in possession of a firearm, which will get him put away even if the shooting is thought to be justified.

I think your coworker might be right about the increasing use of jury nullification in self defense cases, but I doubt it will happen in this case. The shooting just isn't going to be seen as a reasonable person from the circumstances. Going back in to eat and then leaving to eat somewhere else will hurt that case. A reasonable man who was in the right would have stayed there for the police (I think the jury will believe that).