Defending Property: No

Under the American system of law you cannot use lethal force, or potentially lethal force, to protect property, period.  The most common form of this seems to be in connection with automobile theft.  Thug tries to steel a citizen’s vehicle, citizen intervenes, thug ends up dead.  Well, even if found and ruled justified after the fact, which can happen depending on the circumstances (or the citizen can end up in prison, depending on circumstances) we still have a dead human over property theft.  Now, let’s clarify; if your child is in the car when the thug tries to steel it, that is no longer about property, but about defending a child from a deadly threat.  Totally different.  But, an unoccupied vehicle?

Many will assert that car thieves, and any thieves for that matter, belong six-feet under.  Well, one’s feelings do not override the law.  Further, beyond just what is legal, I urge some consideration with this.  Even if said criminal is, indeed, a miscreant and a menace to society, are you really willing to take a life to protect a thing?  If your answer is “yes” then I think you should re-consider carrying a firearm.  A handgun should be carried for a single purpose only; as the last resort against lethal danger to innocent human life.  Your car is expensive?  You worked hard for your money, unlike the thug?  Well, get over it.  A lot of people who frequent the self-defense space are very cavalier about taking life, at least in their commentary, and that is a bad thing. 

You can’t shoot people to protect property, it is illegal, and it is wrong.  There are a lot of people out there that need to stop with the asinine commentary and educate themselves in self-defense law, as well as ethics.