I still think that I would never shoot someone over "stuff", but looking at the statute I would have to agree with your logic on what is required to use deadly force in this situation. First of all, we don't know if the burglers actually had any property with them or not. Second, I guess whether or not it could be recovered would depend on what it is.dolanp wrote:You must meet all 3 subsections (see that they are joined by "and") to use deadly force in protection of property. (1) and (2) are easily satisfied but the really questionable part is usually (3). Did he "reasonably believe" that there was no other way to recover it? Does having insurance mean that you can 'recover' it? If the person was armed then you'd have a case because (3)(B) would definitely apply.
I'd be interested to see was Charles thinks on that, but I'd have a hard time shooting someone over property unless it was like some irreplacable family heirloom or something like that.
I think this guy could easily be in a lot of trouble here. Does anyone know if he has a CHL or not?