OP
In the context of your statement I want to play it out a bit.
I think the perspective as written of your statement is based on knowing intent before / during the theft. That is something I cannot judge or be aware of. As always, the self-defense rule I share with my students is the AOJ rule. Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy.
Ability Can the person physically cause me great/serious bodily harm and/or death?
Opportunity Does the person(s) have the opportunity to cause me great/serious bodily harm and/or death? Any barriers (time or distance) in place to prevent the suspect’s actions?
Jeopardy Is anyone in jeopardy of great/serious bodily harm and/or death if I do not take immediate action to stop the threat?
Environment 1. Robber is on my property in an out storage shed steeling my property. I hear them and approach.
In this situation the first actions I take is call 911 and get law enforcement on its way and keep my phone on speaker with 911 until LE arrive. I explain the situation and my description ONLY! I do not describe the robber even if I can. This information is given in a face to face with the officer. Second, I would not allow myself to be known to the robber. I know the robber has the ability to harm me because I know what's in that shed. My next step is to interpose myself between loved ones and the robber in a defensive advantage position with the goal of route denial. I want to avoid interjecting an opportunity for confrontation. But knowing what’s in that shed, my defensive angles (my property, my battlespace), I should keep some distance and allow an escape route. I say this because I know a trapped person has a higher chance for the fight mode to be triggered. Unless I am within 30 feet or less, the robber with any normal blunt object is a danger. But again, I do not know what jeopardy I am in based on the few factors at this time. I would not know if they are armed or not. If they exit with nothing in the hands I would not even try to restrain them. I would not even expose myself to make the robber aware I know what’s going on. When law enforcement shows up I would let them handle the person(s).
Environment 2. No family home, robber is in my house steeling my property and I come home.
This situation is very different then environment 1. As I make entrance with our without my family, I enter my home and (I do not notice a forced entry), I enter and see a person in my home. I will go to 100% defense mode. This is because the robber has the ability to harm me and the opportunity also. The only unanswered question is the jeopardy rule. Based on the robber’s reaction to me that question will be answered.
Environment 3. Family and I are home, the perp’s perform a home invasion.
The reason for the home invasion is not a factor. But my challenge and interaction will be brought to the floor of the courts. I do not want to over react like this situation. In a home invasion the state has answered and framed my ability, opportunity and jeopardy rules in NCGS § 14-51.2.(B).
Again, not knowing the robbers “intent” I do not want to place myself in any situation that elevates. Every way we can look at a self-defense situation has a negative impact on ones life. When the dust settles and the law has the rest of my life to pick out every detail. I do not want to place my life in the judgement of others. I want to react within the rules and keep my freedom. The ability, opportunity and jeopardy are three great filters to pan a situation out to my advantage. Nothing I own is worth my freedom.
John
This is all with in the current legal frame we live in today. You're right, as the law and society view it, I would not shoot to defend my property.
But, why and when did society move to this model? Like I said in other posts, 1940's and back, if you hurt or killed a thief, the law did not bother you.
