TexasCHLforum.com

9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. 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.

Theft during nighttime (4:45 AM is nighttime). From escaping with the property ( criminal was). And he reasonably believes, to recover the property would expose him to a substantial risk of bodily injury. (yep).

So in my opinion use of deadly force during the nighttime would be justified, as trying to stop the escape of a criminal with the property in a moving vehicle would expose him to a substantial risk of bodily injury.

I suspect the grand jury will concur. (but not if it was in Austin)

However, letting the criminal escape with the truck and collecting on the insurance, would probably cost less in the long run.

Don't commit property crimes at night in Texas.

I guess it would depend on whether it was at night, and whether it was really his truck and it was not being repossessed or he had given permission for the 19 year old to drive it.

Sad.