1) Shooting armed robbers isn't considered "tricky" to Texas juries,
2) We haven't adopted a Thief Civil Rights Bill here, in spite of the high percentage of lawyer politicians.
I am not sure that anyone would want to put himself in a position of relying on twelve Texans as the only thing standing between him and a lengthy jail term. The jury has to rule on the question of whether the defendant was "reasonable" in believing that it was necessary to kill someone who was running away from him after having stolen a mobile phone, and also that either the phone couldn't be recovered in any way other than by killing the thief, or that any other attempt to get the phone back would have exposed him to death or serious injury. And if the theft takes place--even at night--in a mall, a coffee shop, or under videotape surveillance, it's not difficult to argue that there were non-lethal alternatives to recovery.
Even assuming you were fortunate enough to get acquitted, the effect on your life of having to stand trial for homicide, posting bail, paying a lawyer to defend you, and missing work, is not inconsequential. Nor is the stress of knowing that your entire future, and that of your family, depends upon twelve people who couldn't figure out how to avoid jury duty. And then there is the loss of privacy while the 24-hour news channels debate whether you are a hero or just another macho man looking for an excuse to use his gun on someone. It will be a long time before you are again anyone but "that guy who killed the kid who took his phone".
Plus, of course, just the first meeting with your criminal defense lawyer will cost more than a new phone.
Look, this is the internet, and there's nothing wrong with exaggerating to make a point, or just to relieve a little of the frustration we all feel about dealing with the threat of crime, and I think we all understand that. But no one should ever get the idea that shooting a gun at another human being is a trivial matter.
