Why shouldn’t lethal force be used to protect property? Many people rely on their property to make a living, and need to keep it. They cannot afford weeks of lost income while trying to convince an insurer to pay for what was stolen (which may never happen, if the theft cannot be proven because the thief got away), nor lawyers to bring civil suit against the perp to a) try to convince a judge that the perp took the property, and b) try to collect on a judgement.
ALL crime should be stopped in progress when it is detected in progress. A consistent policy of doing this would greatly change the reasoning processes of people considering committing crimes, in large part because they wouldn’t be operating within a social group consisted almost entirely of people who had committed brazen crimes and gotten away with them.
Lethal force can’t be used to protect property, I think, because the punishment isn’t proportionate to the crime. Having my car stolen, for instance, would be a huge crime against me, I could lose my livelihood and etc., but, it wouldn’t KILL me.
Myself I favor double, triple, quadruple restitution as per the Bible. Far more just.
Amen, Brother!
Swift & consistent offing of perps in process (including fleeing) will cause these things to cease among you, even if for no other reason than a shortage of perps.
My dad used to tell a story of him & 'the wrong crowd' he got mixedup with, taking a late night, barefooted run through a stubble field, after getting caught in a watermelon patch, by a shotgun toting, irate farmer.
Don't know if the farmer really fired at them, or just into the air, but that was the last of Dad's watermelon capers.