Let’s say you’re walking down the street and someone grabs something you’re carrying and then tries to run away. Legally, can you chase them down and tackle them? Can you hit them, etc., in trying to get them to give it back to you?
What I mean is, it seems that you wouldn’t really be attacking them in self-defense, since they weren’t threatening you physically. But at the same time, it could be the only way to keep from losing the thing they took. Even if you report it to the police, the person might never be apprehended, and even if they are you might never see your possessions again.
So where does the law stand on this? Are you legally allowed to use physical force to prevent a theft, and if so, how much force is allowed?
Laws vary widely by state. In Louisiana you can kill to defend property in your business, home, or car. As long the robber is still in your home or business, you are fine. However, you can’t chase the robber into your yard and shoot them.
"The result of the new statutory system is to allow defense of property to justify a homicide, but only if the property is inside a dwelling, business, or motor vehicle. If the incident occurs outside of those areas a permittee can use reasonable force to defend his or her property, but not necessarily deadly force. [143] A permittee would not be wise to use his or her concealed handgun to defend [p.349] property outside of the three protected areas because use of a firearm could violate the limit of “reasonable force.” [144] Use of a handgun could be deadly force, even if the permittee does not intend to kill the attacker.
The present system could produce results that do not hinge on the value of the property. A man can kill to defend his decrepit car even though it is only worth a few hundred dollars, but a merchant walking to the bank with several thousand dollars cannot use deadly force to defend that money. [145] If the distinction which allows defense of property is not based on value, it becomes difficult to discern upon what it is based. Perhaps the legislature is focusing on the right of an individual to be secure while on private property. One unlawfully intruding upon that private property forfeits the right to be protected against homicide. Conversely, a person in his own home gains the right to kill to prevent unlawful entry."
Under majority common law, the OP describes a possible assault but definitely a battery so long as the person is trying to strip property from your person. The OP could use reasonable force to stop assault, if any, and the battery.
Once the thief takes the property, you could use reasonable force to secure the property and detain the suspect.
What is “reasonable” depends on each case. I would think that tackling the person, recovering the property, and detaining the person until police arrive would be reasonable. Shooting the thief in the back … probably excessive.
There may have been laws passed where you are that state what level of force is appropriate. It would be quite possible and not altogether unlikely that parts of the US, for example, would oblige you to pull a 9mm and discharge half the clip.
Alternatively, the assessment of what amounts to reasonable force may be left in the hands of the Judges/Courts in each case. Currently courts are influenced by the idea of ‘proportionality’. i.e. that the level of action taken is proportionate to the lawful aims it serves.