I agree, it does seem unnecessary in this case. Laws are (typically) made by reasonable people with reasonably good intentions, but not everyone is reasonable with good intentions, and even the best of laws will be abused by those people from time to time. In my opinion, even though this man was within his rights under the law, he was morally wrong to shoot the burglars given what we know of the situation. Perhaps Texas should alter their castle doctrine laws to exclude people from being able to legally defend someone else's property with deadly force or to shoot a fleeing burglar, but that would have consequences of its own. For example, people might hesitate to pull the trigger because they're worried that they'd be charged with a crime if it appeared the burglar was fleeing, or perhaps a gun owner would hesitate to help a neighbor who was in the process of being robbed. Many would say "Good!" to those consequences, reasoning that one should hesitate to take another person's life regardless of the circumstances, but in a situation like that, hesitation can kill you. It seems reasonable to conclude that such changes would almost certainly eventually result in the unnecessary death of at least one law abiding citizen, and probably many more. In typical Texas fashion, lawmakers there have sidestepped the legal and philosophical quagmire such considerations necessarily lead to and have created a blanket castle doctrine with few exclusions which simply leaves the morality aspect of it up to the people. I imagine most Texans prefer it that way, and for those who don't, the USA has a plethora of states to choose from whose people and legislators subscribe to a very different interpretation of the right to self defense.