jktseug wrote:I agree that it would be nice if we were able to protect ourselves and our property, but equating it to part of our lives and hours, that could be questionable. What is to stop someone from shooting a salesman that just wouldn't say no, or leave them alone. If that person is intrusive they are causing you to lose time from your life that you could be doing something else.
I see a material difference between someone stealing my property and a pushy salesman. I've personally never met anyone on whom I could not hang up, close the front door, or walk away. Any physical attempt to prevent me from walking away or closing my front door may very well justify a physical response (up to and including the use of deadly force in some cases) under current law.
Even so, there are a number of reasons one might pick to support a view that the law should allow (never require, of course, but allow) the use of deadly force to defend property in at least certain cases. Noting that loss of property might be equated to the loss of some portion of your life is but one of the more emotionally compelling reasons I can conceive. I'm also perfectly ok with, "You have no right to take someone else's property and if you attempt to do so, that person has the right to defend his property using whatever means are necessary to stop you. If a simple 'Stop' works, great. If not, he can tackle you, taser you, or put 15 rounds into your back as you run down the street carrying his TV or case of beer. If you don't want 15 rounds in your back, don't steal other people's stuff."
It is a little more harsh, but is ultimately the reason we allow use of deadly force to prevent rape, or other potential serious injury. We say the reason we allow use of deadly force in a home invasion is because of the presumption the bad guy intends harm, but really, we allow you to assume he intends harm so as to justify using deadly force to quickly end home invasions in most cases. Simply put, as a society we disapprove of certain conduct strongly enough that we allow victims to use deadly force against the criminal. I am not equating rape or home invasion to simple theft. I'm simply pointing out that as a society we can simply decide that certain criminal conduct is offensive or harmful enough that we will allow victims to respond more forcefully than we do currently. At one time horse theft was a hanging offense. Today it is not. What is to say that tomorrow it and many other forms of theft maybe shouldn't be again, or at least allow victims in the heat of the moment to use more force than the courts would be allowed to impose after the fact?