Irpettit:
(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
Even though my original response was tongue in cheek humor, that was the real response I got from my attorney. Also, keep in mind the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law when taking into account your actions. The reason why it is "open season" at night for burglary is not that Texas allows shooting unarmed burglars at night over a radar detector. You are NOT shooting someone over a radar detector. You are shooting someone because you told him to give it back to you, but instead he makes some other actions. What other action? Who knows, it is dark and nighttime, remember? He might be going for his gun! This law is very important because it doesn't allow armchair quarterbacks determine that the lawful shooter is "shooting someone over replaceable property" because he IS NOT doing so. He is shooting someone at night who might be armed who is not complying with a request to return such property. The OP is possibly a red herring liberal baiter and y'all took the bait. Don't ever let liberals goad you down a path where only they will win. Some of them are master baiters. You can win these debates by not taking the bait, taking a step back, and thinking logically what the letter of the law is and the spirit of the law.
So, to answer the OP's question, you should only use lethal force when visibility is poor due to darkness, you asked that the burglar to "freeze and slowly put the radar detector on the ground," but he makes some other furtive move that you cannot ascertain due to the lack of sunlight. In that case, you can morally and legally shoot the culprit. However, do keep in mind that the cretin or his family might try to sue you in civil court. Anyone can sue anybody for anything in America. As a prudent move, you should keep legal insurance and a lawyer on a retainer if you have a CHL. You may be legally and morally justified, but it might cost you a pretty penny to prove that in court. Just look at Zimmerman. There is a witness that saw him being beaten by Trayvon, but he is having the fight of his life, not with Trayvon, but in court.
So, if you don't take the red herring bait, here is how a LEGAL shooting that is also moral and necessary might play out;
1. You hear a sound outside and you go out to investigate, not knowing what it is (it might be a cat tipping over your trash can).
2. You see the burglar taking something out of your car. You take out your gun and yell, "freeze!"
3. The burglar doesn't freeze. He makes a furtive move, possibly for his gun, but you cannot see because it is dark.
4. You shoot to defend yourself.
To avoid having the fight of your life in court afterwards, be sure that it really is dark outside because the spirit of the law is to protect you in case you HAVE to shoot due to visibility being poor and the culprit possibly having a gun. In other words, if you had 20 spotlights on your driveway, better not shoot if you can plainly see the burglar is unarmed and willing to give back your property.
Liberal red herring baits: DO NOT TAKE THE BAIT ! ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE ON THE JURY.