Frank, your second quotation is not about defense of property, but about recapture of property after the fact, or about taking vengeance for past wrongs. At least, that is how it reads to me.
Edit: Actually, taken as a whole, BOTH of those quotes seem to constructively refer to society not allowing action after the fact. Blackstone does not say force level itself must be limited, at least not in your quotes; he says only that use of such force must not exceed that required to protect or defend.
End of Edit.
Stopping a crime is not vigilanteism.
Punishing the thief after the fact, is.
Blackstone also seems to be saying that harming the criminal out of necessity is acceptable, if regrettable; but harming him because he has harmed you, IE out of pique, is not acceptable.
In the case eppie described, the act was in progress, not a fait accompli. His actions were to prevent a theft, and protect his property; he did no harm to the would-be thief after the would-be thief backed off. To me, his actions are in line with your Blackstone quotes.
And again, I have to keep reminding myself that dogs are "property." In both my wife's family and in mine, they are more like family members. While this may not be true in the eyes of the law, it is how many pet owners perceive our pets, and I suspect a higher percentage than "the law" would like to believe would use some level of force to present the taking of, or injury to, a pet.
Third Edit: To the OP, sorry for going so far afield with your thread...
Last edited by MLeake; October 26, 2012 at 02:26 AM.