Well, is the thief’s life worth more to me than my car? Why would I think it is? He’s clearly showing that he’s not part of society, and not willing to play by society’s rules.
Yeah, but it’s reply 1000 that matters, sorry, but that goes to E-Sabbath.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that the criminals are really misguided angels, just that you can’t reform a dead criminal.
Once more, the OP states they have already been burgled, the thief has been disturbed, and is heading towards the back door and is no longer a direct threat. Is it neccessary to take on the option of trying to make a citizens arrest, or worse still for the criminal, the far less hassle approach of shooting them in the back?
Well, if you don’t count the OP - and your post doesn’t count cos it’s just telling Chacoguy off - then that must be me!
Yay, what’s my prize?
I believe the argument being made by the NASCAR! crowd is that, regardless of what the criminal is doing*, what you as the homeowner should do is put yourself in the controlling position - standing with gun pointed directly at the criminal’s retreating back. This way, should the crook get it into his mind to drop the Tivo, draw a gun, turn, and fire - you have some semblance of a chance of getting your shot off first. If he just keeps running with your Tivo, well, I don’t recall anybody saying they’d then blow him away with a shot to the back, but then there’s rather a lot of posts in this thread, so there might be something I missed.
People have said they’d shout “Freeze!” (usually in the context of a different scenario from the OP’s where they don’t actually catch the criminal in the act of running) but I don’t recall anybody saying they’d shout “stop or I’ll shoot” to the guy taking off with the Tivo. (The car, maybe, but not the Tivo.) Does that match with your recollection of the thread?
- Within reason; were the criminal already hosing bullets in your direction with an AK47, other tactics may merit consideration.
Why would you count the OP as a reply? That’s the most illogical thing I’ve ever heard, well, second to your repeat posts in this thread.
It’s much the same debate between 2000 and 2001.
2001 is the new millenium, 2000 is just a year with a lot of 0’s.
Think about it! A thousand replies after the OP = ??? Me or E-Sabbath, yes, no? You said yourself it was replies that counted!
But, if you count up yours, mine and a couple of others repeat posts, and billfish678’s sometimes barely comprehensible(but still very amusing!) gibberish, the 1,000th proper reply is probably still open if you want to do some sifting. Why not just let me have it?*
- Go on, admit it; that’s what you’ve been dying to do all along!
The internet.
Okay, I’ll throw in - it you’re going to discount posts because they’re not on topic, we’re probably only on post 948 or something.
Edit: I will still grant you the prize of the Internet, though. However, you have to wrap it and carry it away yourself.
I did, more or less. I wouldn’t necessarily do it for a number of reasons, but I do see “criminal gets away and gets paid for hurting innocent people” as a worse outcome than “criminal dies as a result of hurting innocent people”.
ALL of it, or just this bit?
All of it, of course. Who ever heard of anybody winning half the internet?
Really, I am not worthy.
I would like to give half my prize to…billfish678, for encouraging me through that tricky 90+ posts phase. Without him, I’d never have reached the Big 100. 
For Crom’s sake, don’t you people realize that it’s ivan’s goal to have the last post in the thread? Ivan, make your post and someone please beg the mods to close it so he can be happy, OK?
Er, he had the last post until you came butting in…
Now, now, don’t be squabbling!
Or else we can make this thread the permanent dumping ground for the never-ending guns and gun control and 2nd Amendment debate; and eventually surpass the 5000+ reply record currently held by the “a” thread. 
You guys should go see what mswas (“tells”) is posting over in the “orphans of the sky” thread.
For someone who seemed rather hesitant to shoot intruders, he has some rather draconian measures when it comes to interstellar travel
And going over there and giving him heck probably is a major offense…so…
I realize this thread has about run its course, but I happened to see this in the news today.
From another link on that page here.
This is a prudential should, which is entirely different from the normative should in “scumbags should not steal my stuff.” After 100+ posts, you continue to suggest that (1) there is some moral component to the “you should probably make it harder for thieves to thieve,” when there is not a scintilla of such a moral duty; and that (2) thievery is brought about by property owners who take ABSOLUTELY NO PRECAUTIONS AND PRACTICALLY BEG thieves to thieve. This is naturally a strawman, not only because (it cannot be said enough times) there is no obligation to keep your shiat under lock and key to avoid it being stolen, but also because you have been consistently unable to define the “level of care” that you would purport to impose on property owners. You’ve been challenged, and have failed, to specify when the homeowner has done “enough.” You make vague references to “good locks” and “security systems” and “motion sensors.” But you have NEVER provided a standard for “Okay, you’ve done enough burglar proofing, now if a scumbag burglar gets in, I will agree that you bear no, zero, none, nada, ‘fault’ or failing for being burgled.”
We all know why you haven’t done so – because you’re blaming the victim as a rationalization for your own impulses, and you will ALWAYS reserve the right to move the goal posts yet again so that you can ALWAYS, after the fact, deem the homeowner to have done not as much as he “should” have, and hence to bear some significant share in the moral rot of you and your buddies.