oldgrandpajack said:
My take on this; nothing in my home is worth taking the life of anyone. All life is precious, and even the thief may someday wake up, and change his life. I leave judgement to the courts and God. I would call 911 regardless, and I would defend my family, if I felt they were threatened. Things can be replaced. Lives, once gone, can't be.
oldgrandpajack
The key thing here is " if I felt they were threatened". If a thief is breaking into an unoccupied store, a parked car, or my outside shed, I would assume he's only after property and poses little threat. I would use the threat of my weapon to try to detain him but would likely not use it unless a more direct threat became apparent.
However, if a criminal is engaged in a crime involving people he's already made the decision that he's going to do whatever is necessary to innocent victims to get away with his crime. Any thief who invades an occupied home, robs a bank, or carjacks is by definition "threatening" his victims by his actions and I would not hesitate to use the force necessary to protect myself or others.
A "property thief" will get the benefit of the doubt that his sudden movements aren't reaching for a weapon or trying to attack others. I have the liberty of more time to consider his intentions and my response because the threat level is lower and likely not an immediate threat. An "attacker of people" is already posing a threat and I have no choice but to assume any "questionable" actions are increasing the threat to myself or others and I must act quicker to protect us from the criminal. I know I am a good person and won't harm others if it can be avoided. But I know the criminal is not a good person and I cannot trust him to avoid harming his victims so I will do whatever is required to end the threat to me and others.
No life can be replaced, they can only be protected. If it comes down to a choice between protecting the victims and protecting the criminals, I will always protect the victims.
