Would this situation you be Justified in Shooting

[Pawpaw]

I guess my hesitation (not likely called for, I would probably agree) is that as the OP stated it they are running away. When is a person running away no longer a threat? When might it become a shot to protect property instead of protecting ones self? Are they three feet away and we're still more or less engaged or are they 30 feet away? Curious about everyone's thoughts. This is a good discussion.

IMO, if they're close enough that you can shoot them, they're still close enough to decide not to leave a witness, turn around, and shoot you.

Of course, each situation will probably be different. You just have to guess right.

[goose]

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night¬time from escaping with the property; and

Don't ignore the "or". The language afterwards adds theft during the night.

I guess my hesitation (not likely called for, I would probably agree) is that as the OP stated it they are running away. When is a person running away no longer a threat? When might it become a shot to protect property instead of protecting ones self? Are they three feet away and we're still more or less engaged or are they 30 feet away? Curious about everyone's thoughts. This is a good discussion.

The law doesn't it just limit it to being threatened. The law, sections quoted above, explains one can legally shoot to protect property in certain instances. Whether one choses to do so is up to each individual.

Agreed. I think your point about me missing the "or" is on point. "Immediately after" covers the OP's scenario.

[goose]

I guess my hesitation (not likely called for, I would probably agree) is that as the OP stated it they are running away. When is a person running away no longer a threat? When might it become a shot to protect property instead of protecting ones self? Are they three feet away and we're still more or less engaged or are they 30 feet away? Curious about everyone's thoughts. This is a good discussion.

IMO, if they're close enough that you can shoot them, they're still close enough to decide not to leave a witness, turn around, and shoot you.

Of course, each situation will probably be different. You just have to guess right.

Agreed. There is some point where I wouldn't want to take the shot. But as you said, with a hundred variables there is no way of knowing what that point would look like ahead of time.

As a digression, sorry OP, one thing that kept coming into my head is that as the perp is making their way to a strategically better place (away) I should also be looking for a strategically better place (cover). The first few times I ran this through my head I saw myself standing there drawn, watching the bad guy move away. And in my mind trying to figure out where I defined the perp as no longer a threat. After about the third time, I asked myself why I was still standing there. Get behind the ATM. Get behind a car. Get somewhere more strategic in case they do turn around as you mentioned.

[LucasMcCain]

This scenario came up in a seminar I attended last week. You are within your rights to shoot the perp, but is doing so morally right? That's a question that you would have to decide for yourself. Are the contents of your wallet worth taking a human life? If you catch teenagers toilet papering your front yard at 2 in the morning, you can legally shoot them, but it would be morally wrong in my humble opinion. It's a good exercise to run through scenarios like this ahead of time, though. That way you have a plan. Should you get robbed, you won't have to make a life or death decision in the heat of the moment.