"Reasonable" in law is usually tied to the negligence definition of "the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would observe under a given set of circumstances."
But I don't know what the specific statue says or if that's the same definition Texas uses in criminal law.
There is NO PRESUMPTION OF REASONABLENESS WHEN DEFENDING PROPERTY
Presumption of reasonableness applies in the case when they were a direct threat to your well being and you used a adequate amount of force to stop them, e.g. self defense
What this means is that you still have to meet the reasonableness standard, but the jury will be the ultimate arbiter of reasonableness of conduct, not as iron clad as presumption of reasonableness.
Texas law penal code 9.41(b):
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
"Reasonable" in law is usually tied to the negligence definition of "the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would observe under a given set of circumstances."
But I don't know what the specific statue says or if that's the same definition Texas uses in criminal law.
That standard of care quote basically means it's up to the jury.
There is NO PRESUMPTION OF REASONABLENESS WHEN DEFENDING PROPERTY
Presumption of reasonableness applies in the case when they were a direct threat to your well being and you used a adequate amount of force to stop them, e.g. self defense
What this means is that you still have to meet the reasonableness standard, but the jury will be the ultimate arbiter of reasonableness of conduct, not as iron clad as presumption of reasonableness.
Texas law penal code 9.41(b):
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.