Anyone trying to detain someone for suspected burglary or theft that doesn’t have stolen property on their person is opening themselves up for trouble. I’ll be damned if I’ll risk my life and future over a “suspected” stolen drill or saw or nail gun or ????….property crimes generally don’t rise to the standard of deadly force in my book. I don’t play neighborhood vigilante nor do I fancy myself captain America, others are welcome to do whatever they want but they need to remember that this is the potential outcome for sticking your neck out over a tool.
I don’t know if I agree with the verdict because I didn’t hear everything presented at trial but I’m not surprised that this is the outcome. I didn’t think it was smart when they did it and this verdict reaffirms my initial gut instinct.
You may be wise in choosing that course of action, but this is not necessarily about what you may choose to do under the same or similar circumstances. The relevant question is whether folks are within their rights to arm themselves in the context of an attempt to detain someone they reasonably believe is a burglar.
Take note that I did not say "within their rights to shoot someone for suspected burglary." That's not at issue. No one was shot for suspicion of burglary. The notion that burglary doesn't justify shooting someone is, therefore, completely irrelevant. All that's relevant is whether someone possesses a right to be armed while attempting to detain a burglar, or someone he reasonably believes is one.
Once you get there, it becomes a simple analysis of self-defense justification. If someone attacks you while you are armed within your rights, is lethal force in self-defense justified? That's it. That's the analysis. Your personal choices under similar circumstances might be interesting to discuss, but have no relevance to the analysis appropriate for this case.
