[wtc911]

Both wrong. This is from a page on self-defense law in the state of CT....

"A person who possesses or controls property or has a license or privilege to be in or on it is justified in using reasonable physical force when and to the extent he reasonably believes it to be necessary to stop another from trespassing or attempting to trespass in or upon it. The owner can use deadly physical force only (1) to defend a person as described above, (2) when he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent the trespasser from attempting to commit arson or any violent crime, or (3) to the extent he reasonably believes it is necessary to stop someone from forcibly entering his home or workplace (and for the sole purpose of stopping the intruder) (CGS § 53a-20)."

[Puppage]

in using reasonable physical force

Define: reasonable

And, there is the broad brush that they could quite possibly use against the homeowner who defends himself & family.

[Jack of all Trades]

The text you posted is out of date. The code reference number is 53a-20, which cites 53a-19 "Use of physical force in defense of person."

53a-19 essentially says you can't kill someone unless they are trying to do you great physical harm, and you can't initiate any action that leads to that situation.

This to me seems entirely reasonable. Waving a gun and chasing after someone who stole something sounds like a good way to end up dead.

[Dead Corpse]

Texas just sent our very own Castle Doctrine law to the Governors desk yesterday. No "duty to retreat", Civil suit protection, and a few other tasty bits tossed in to make things even more hazardous for bad guys.

This oughta cut down on court costs dramatically. Might make the coroners job a bit tougher though...