If they just want your stuff and aren’t threatening you in any way, I don’t think you can get away with shooting them. Of course, if they aren’t threatening you, I’d recommend telling them “No, you can’t have my stuff”.
Colorado again -
“(c)The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit … robbery as defined in section 18-4-301”
Again - 50 different states, different laws, not a lawyer.
Of course. Robbery is a very specific legal term. It is often confused with theft. Robbery is using force or intimidation (threat of force) to obtain property. Theft is taking property without force, also known as larceny. If you are being robbed that means that force or the threat of force is being used against you. I can’t think of any place in the US were you are not justified in using force to protect yourself. Using deadly force would vary depending on each situation.
Can you be prosecuted for shooting someone who is not on your property and not threatening you in any way what so ever?
Sheeesh, you need to ask?
It’s threads like this that demonstrate the huge cultural US/UK divide.*
FWIW - Not directly relevant but you may be interested to know that here in the UK a few years ago there was a high profile case because a guy shot a burgler who had actually already got into his house. Guy was jailed for attempted murder i think. I’m guessing he wouldn’t have even made the papers in the US never mind being prosecuted.
*just social commentary dude, not US bashing 
Xash, please forgive me if this tips the thread over into GD. Or, you are welcome to delete my post.
I gotta ask Rocksolid - would you rather be able to defend your property or be watching the thief carry it off?
Or, my mom in law lives on the same tract of land that we do. Are you saying, if I spy a thief at her door, it’s improper of me to stop him/her ?
You can in Mississippi.
*SEC. 97-3-15. Homicide; justifiable homicide.
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:*
<snip>
e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be;
(f) When committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;
While I was still living there, Utah passed a law specifically allowing people to defend their homes with deadly force. There was a case where someone claimed he was excercising that right when he shot a policeman breaking in on a “no knock” search. I don’t know if I ever heard what was the outcome.
There was a case where a man shot what he thought was a bank robber, and was procecuted.
In my line of work I am familiar with a case involving bank president who actually DID shoot a bank robber and manage to avoid legal trouble.
Robber walks in the bank carrying a shotgun and walks past the banker’s office door, apparently ignoring the banker and heading towards the teller line.
Banker pulls his pistol out of his desk and follows the bad guy into the lobby without being noticed.
As soon as the robber points his gun at one of the tellers, the banker empties his firearm into the guy, ending the discussion.
Once the authorities showed up, they had some choice words with the banker over not letting the police handle things, but decided that they couldn’t think of a single charge that would stick, at least in front of a jury.
Then again, I’m guessing your story involves a bank robber heading AWAY from the bank and meaning no further harm to anyone. Different ball of wax, that.