I don't think there's a bright line but here's an example. Your neighbor's son rides off on your son's bicycle without permission in the evening. You know who took it and they're not much of a flight risk. You could call the cops and have a pretty good chance of recovering the bicycle undamaged. Depending on your relationship with the neighbor, you might even choose to have a talk with him about his son's behavior. e.g. you're friendly and you know he would disapprove of his kid "borrowing" other people's property without permission.locke_n_load wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 2:39 pm And does anyone understand what "the... property cannot be...recovered by any other means" actually means? The fact that it says "or" is usually why I can justify the legality of shooting over property is legal (but definitely not a good idea).
An example on the other end of the spectrum is masked men stealing prescription drugs from a pharmacy or gold from a jewelry store. The thieves are unknown. The stolen property is easily convertible. If they get away with the property, it's very unlikely the cops will recover it.
I understand some people say they would never shoot over property and they are entitled to their opinion. However, they should recognize it's not a universally held opinion in America. Even people opposed to concealed carry laws have historically accepted armed guards at banks to protect property, etc.