Nope, almost all US states allow the use of deadly force to defend self, others, and property. The laws are refered to as castle doctrine, and only half a dozen states don’t have it.
From a strictly moral standpoint, all of 'em. Practically? It would be limited to items of significant dollar or sentimental value. I was raised to believe a thief’s life is always worth less than what he stole, and that the word “mine” (legally owned items) justifies anything from harsh words to spilled blood.
It’s interesting how other people view this. In my upbringing, the criminal’s life has no value when calculating risk, cost, likely outcomes, etc. Sometimes the safest path is to let him get away, but if you need to protect your stuff, you shouldn’t worry about the outcome for the crook. He made that choice, not you. My dad had an interesting answer one time, after some particularly harsh treatment of a nighttime trespasser; “What about his rights?” asked a young relative. “They’re out there at the edge of my property, right where he left 'em” was the answer. 
To be clear, this is not me brandishing my big Texas belt buckle and announcing how tough I am on ne’er-do-wells. I don’t normally carry a gun and in all but one case* have chosen not to confront when faced with potential problems. His life isn’t worth the value of my stuff, but mine is.
*in my half-century on this rock, real threats have been extremely rare.
A man in my former hometown shot a drug addicted 18 year old petty thief in the back as he fled a neighbor’s garage with a leaf blower. In the back. Collapsed a lung, shattered a few ribs, kid barely survived and was hospitalized for over a month. Meanwhile a debate over defense of property raged in local media. The shooter, who admitted that he recognized the burglar as a neighborhood kid, was not charged with a crime. Appalling.
I do not feel that shooting a fleeing, non violent burglar in the back for stealing your neighbor’s garden tools is justifiable on any level. The kid recovered and is out of jail, and thanks to his ongoing health problems due to the shooting, continues to have a drug problem… But I’m far more concerned that the shooter is allowed to live among us with his guns and his legally sanctioned temper.
No, murder or attempted murder is not a fair, logical, or sane response to theft.
I’ve got no cite on that, but here’s a cite on burglary rates by country. The results seem to indicate that there is no correlation whatsoever between the crime rate and the likelyhood for the burglar to encounter an armed home owner. Burglary rates seem to be influenced by other, unknown factors.
Cases of Robbery per 100,000 Population
Belgium 1762
Spain 1188
Mexico 607
Chile 456
Portugal 192
France 181
England and Wales 137
United States 133
Italy 108
Sweden 103
Canada 96
Netherlands 84
Northern Ireland 74
Denmark 73
Luxembourg 67
Switzerland 66
Germany 60
Ireland 56
Austria 55
Estonia 54
New Zealand 52
Poland 50
Scotland 48
Czech Republic 45
Greece 42
Israel 40
Norway 37
Hungary 32
Finland 31
Slovakia 25
Slovenia 24
Iceland 19
Australia 18
Korea 13
Turkey 11
Japan 4
If I feel threatened and I have a way to apply leathal force to protect myself or my property, I won’t feel bad about using it at all.
If a guy grabs something of mine and runs off with it, I’m definitely not going to shoot him in the back (if I had a gun, as it were I do not ).
<nitpick>
Robbery is NOT the same as burglary. Robbery involves the use of force or threatened use of force. Burglary does not.
</nitpick>
Further down that same report there is a list of burglary rate per 100,000 population.
Burglary
Country Police Recorded Cases per
100,000 population
Denmark 1939
New Zealand 1386
Austria 1283
Iceland 1117
Sweden 1029
Australia 1017
England and Wales 986
Chile 965
Belgium 891
Switzerland 843
Slovenia 746
Northern Ireland 717
United States 715
Israel 611
Canada 611
Ireland 610
Luxembourg 573
Czech Republic 525
France 513
Norway 490
Portugal 463
Scotland 458
Germany 456
Netherlands 428
Spain 420
Greece 416
Hungary 377
Finland 359
Poland 354
Slovakia 282
Italy 190
Korea 169
Turkey 161
Mexico 156
Japan 117
Estonia 40
Even if you take any inherent value of human life out of it, there’s probably not any way I’m going to shoot an unarmed burglar in my house and not have to pay a lawyer for a few hours of his time to make sure all the ends are tied up. That would probably cost more than whatever the burglar could just carry out of my house. Hell, for that matter buying a decent handgun and ammo would cost more than replacing about anything someone could steal from us.
It would be another story if I were afraid for our safety, but around here all but a vanishingly small number of burglaries are committed by pillheads looking for things they can trade for pills. The easiest thing in the world to trade for pills is a gun, so if said pillhead had a gun he wouldn’t need to rob my house.
Or maybe you point your gun at him and he leaves.
No, he does not leave, he lies on the ground, I zip tie his hands and we wait for the cops.
In all states, if you feel you are in imminent danger you have the right to protect yourself with the use of of deadly force. Somebody stealing a leaf blower and running down the street does not pose an imminent threat to life or limb.
I’m not interested in getting into a debate, but I wanted to share this:
An uncle was living on my grandparents’ remote property. A couple of guys stole some things while he was away. They were caught with the goods, and one of them complained that the deputy was stealing his property. And he was serious. His mentality was like, ‘I stole this fair and square. It belongs to me. If you take it from me, that’s stealing; and it’s wrong and unfair!’
Would you shoot to kill, and could you live with taking another’s life over mere possessions? Because it’s the only way to guarantee that the same burglar won’t steal again. Being shot in the back while in the process of burglarizing an empty home didn’t stop this kid from stealing again to support his habit.
Of course it doesn’t, and the DA gave no good reasons for choosing not to charge the shooter. As the DA is an elected position, my guess is that public sentiment influenced his decision. Here, read a Topix discussionabout it. Bear in mind that many of these boasters are speaking with internet muscles, but also note that some who feel the shooting was justified are articulate and calling for the kid’s extermination.
This kind of question should be aimed at the thief, not the victim.
Many states allow deadly force against a person committing burglary. The inference is that if a person is illegally in your home, they intend to commit a crime that allows you to defend yourself with deadly force.
I own many firearms.
I wouldn’t use them to kill anyone who was simply stealing my stuff; that’s why I have insurance. (And why I have a gun safe!)
But I do have an interest in my personal safety and that of my family. And I wouldn’t balk at shooting and killing an intruder who presented any threat to my wife or son or me.
I’d undoubtedly have nightmares and need therapy afterwards. I shudder even typing this at the thought of ending a human life. But I’m not naive enough to dismiss the realization that, thankfully rare though they are, some circumstances arise where the choice is between the life of an intruder and the physical safety of my family. And if, God in His mercy forbid, that should ever happen, I would act to protect my family.
I fully expect that this will remain hypothetical my entire life. But I have life insurance for me and my wife, even though I don’t expect either of us to die, because I make plans to handle the worst situations and keep praying they never come to pass.
Don’t underestimate just how traumatized you yourself will be if you injure or kill someone, even justifiably. Even if you don’t think it’d bother you, you will be changed and the change is generally an uncomfortable, unpleasant experience.
If it’s clear there’s no threat and it’s just someone out to steal things then, even if legal, I wouldn’t shoot. However, I can’t fathom any way it would be clear there was no threat if the thief was in my home at night absent running towards the door. I won’t stop the intruder and ask politely if he just wants my property. I’d shoot.
My crim law professor was very blase about the whole defense of property/burglary thing and used to joke that if you shoot an intruder coming in through a window or exiting through one just make sure to pull the body into the house before the police get there…
Given the biased nature of the thread title, I’ll respond with two equally useless scenarios:
-
if you don’t have a gun at home, does this mean that you walk the streets until you find a burglar and then hand him your possessions?
-
if you do own a gun and you find a wallet in the street with identification, but don’t return it - do you shoot yourself?
Pretty much everything Bricker said plus a question: if I’m sitting here and somebody illegal enters my home, how in the world am I supposed to determine that they are only there to steal my things? Would I shoot somebody for stealing my TV? No. But I’m also not going to trust the person who just broke into my home to limit his crimes to my property and, without being able to determine his intentions, I have to assume that I and/or my children are in immediate danger.
Posting from my phone makes me slow. I also agree with BBJ’s first paragraph.
From the Crown Prosecution Service website:
It then goes on to say that if you use what seems to be reasonable force in the heat of the moment, even if it is later considered to be “disproportionate force”, you will be given the benefit of the doubt only if it is used to protect yourself or others:
I think these really get to the heart of the difference. We all feel we’re making rational decisions based on the facts, but the facts are heavily coloured by cultural issues and other more emotional thoughts. We’re performing the same calculation but the constants in our head are variables from person to person. These two quotes represent a very polarized view of society, “good people” and “bad people”. To a “good person” a “bad person” is worth nothing. Or if not nothing, not more than a phone or perhaps a leaf blower. If that is your view of the world, it’s perfectly reasonable to shoot someone attempting to take your property. To me, that’s a gross oversimplification of the nature of people and a slightly unhealthy inflation of the value of property. I also suspect it’s a slightly unhealthy inflated view of one’s own “goodness” in many cases. But these are all personal opinions and hard (if not impossible) to reason without the use of emotion.
The point is that by making the choice to break into someone’s home and take their property it is the thief, not the victim, who has made the determination that the leaf blower (or whatever) is worth more than a human life.