I'm generally against lethal force to stop a felony theft in progress, but in this veteran's case I think there are extenuating circumstances, so while I wouldn't have done the same thing, I wouldn't vote to convict him of anything if I were on his jury. A thief taunting someone who's got a rifle is not the brightest thing in the world to do. In perhaps a more "civilized" society, that sort of thing would be an automatic challenge to a duel, and suspect the ex-marine would have won any such duel.
The problem I have with use of lethal force to stop a fleeing robber/burglar from fleeing with stolen property is simple. Those laws were designed I hope primarily to protect important property that's someone's livelihood. That's fine. But too many gun-toting law&order types would use such a law as justification to shoot a fleeing burglar/robber to prevent loss of any property even if it's insignificant to their livelihood or well being. While the law makes it legal in a state like Texas to use lethal force in such a situation, assuming all the requirements are met, I think it goes against the intent, or what I think should be the intent, of the law.
Before you value a criminal's life at less than a stereo or TV or jewelry or anything like that, remember that they're probably an ex-con, and if so, while it was their own (often poor) decisions that got them into prison in the first place, it was the prison system itself that likely made them into a career criminal. The same prison system that law&order types love sticking more and more people into, for lesser and lesser crimes.
Originally Posted by therealdeal
I won't shoot him in that situation, but I'll bust him up in the head before he walks away w/my TV. If he escalates, that is on him.
You would voluntarily start a close quarters fight with a burglar?