In that, you do NOT have to be directly threatened with bodily harm to use that deadly force.
Someone posted this...(you):
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
Again....who was the seven year old threatening and how?
There was no third person under threat.
And no crime was being committed requiring deadly force.
If they have a road in the back of their property, they need to determine if an easement's been established, and if it has been, they can't legally prohibit it's use. If it hasn't been established, they need to physically block access to prevent the creation of an easement.
What they can't do is shoot seven year olds under any circumstances that don't involve the child's possession of a firearm or grenade that presents an immediate threat to them.
I am not arguing that shooting the child was legal; I -was- arguing that, in TX, you do not need to be threatened with bodily harm before you you can use deadly force to protct yorself, your property, someone else, or the property of someone else.