So, how to respond to "forceful entry" and the laws regarding defending one's property with deadly force are different from state to state. In Colorado, for example, it is illegal to use deadly force to protect property. The "Make my day" law (similar to Florida's "Stand Your Ground") does allow for deadly force to stop a crime taking place on your property by someone that was not given permission to be on that property (but NOT to prevent or respond to a simple case of trespassing or even breaking and entering). In Texas, not only can you use deadly force to stop an intruder simply from intruding, but you can use deadly force to stop them from intruding on your neighbor's property too (if you were given permission by the property owner to "look after" their property).
So, my point is that the regulation on the use of deadly force is a state-determined thing.
Then my question is how this works at the federal level... What is the federal government's regulation on the use of deadly force? I would guess, when it comes to protecting the border, deadly force is authorized. Is that true? Is it a judgement call by the federal employee with no strong guidance either way?
You need to be corrected on a couple of things first.
The default rule is that it's illegal to use deadly force to defend property. An exception kicks in when, if you're in fresh pursuit trying to reacquire your property, if the other party uses deadly force or force likely to result in serious bodily harm. However, if you use unreasonable force in trying to get your property back, and the thief dies, you can be prosecuted for murder.
And you can't kill someone for trespassing, for stealing your TV, or your car, or for spraying painting obscene things on the side of your house either.
Generally, you have to be in reasonable fear for your life or the life of someone else. If someone's in your house, it's not a free pass to kill them, even if they're standing their holding your computer.
As for Texas:
Defense of Others
...Person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect third person if, under circumstances as actor reasonably believed them to be, actor would be justified in using deadly force to protect himself against unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening third person he seeks to protect, and actor reasonably believes his intervention is immediately necessary to protect third person. V.T.C.A., Penal Code §§ 9.32, 9.33.... Hernandez v. State, Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso. January 04, 1996 914 S.W.2d 218
Deadly Force in Defending Property:
NOTE: all three elements must be met, so pay close attention, particularly to the third element.
To justify the use of deadly force to protect property, the defendant must meet three requirements. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.42. First, the defendant must be justified in using nondeadly force as described in Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.41 (See § 15:78). Second, the use of deadly force will be found justified only if the defendant reasonably believes it is immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft at night, or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent an individual from escaping with property after a burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft at night. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.42. Finally, the use of deadly force is still not justified unless the defendant reasonably believed that the property could not be protected or recovered by any less extreme means or that the use of less than deadly force would expose him or her or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.42.
In other words, you can't just kill someone in Texas because they're making off with your TV. Granted, it is more lenient than common law principles, but it's not a free for all permission to kill. At the same time, prosecutors in Texas are like prosecutors everywhere else. They want that shiny 95% conviction rate and they don't give a damn who they have to convict to get it, including the heroic man who was defending his property. So they're not gonna do you any favors.
Look, if someone steals your TV, and you see them running out of your house with it, let 'em take it, or at least don't gun them down. Even if you are eventually found innocent of killing them, the fact is that you are going to jail that day, and for many days afterwards. You've killed someone and the cops are not gonna be cool about it. You're going to have to get a lawyer, you're going to have to await a pretrial hearing to see if he can get you released, you may have to pay bail, and the judge may not even grant bail. IOW, it could take months for you to be found not guilty while you remain in jail and it's gonna cost you tens of thousands of dollars.
Oh, you'll be offered a plea deal though. Will you risk going to trial to face murder charges and decades in prison when you could plead down to manslaughter and say a suspended 5-10 year sentence (or more)?
So let the fucker have your stuff. Then call the cops. Then get the police report and call your insurance company. It's infinitely better than spending months in jail and being found not-guilty.
P.S. I didn't bother to look up when federal agents can shoot someone at the border, because I already used 10 Westlaw minutes to look up the Texas stuff. However, the common law rules I described above are likely good enough guideline.
