Support NeoGAF

[E92 M3]

The chances of getting hurt are also greatly reduced by buying a burglar alarm and locking yourself in the bedroom. You're also insanely paranoid if you assume that anyone breaking into your house is there to hurt you or your family. The amount that something like that happens randomly is practically 0. You may as well spend you life walking around in a rubber suit to protect yourself from getting hit by lightning because that's far more likely.

And I'm not making an assumption, you literally said 'If someone breaks into my house, you bet your ass I'll shoot.' What assumption am I making? I'm responding to something you explicitly said.

Yes, hypothetical situations and I don't own gun. I am opposed to taking life of any kind, but if I were put in that situation. There would be no hesitation to injure or threaten the burglar.

Like I said before, I wouldn't shoot to kill or shoot someone that is running away.

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

Fuck it. The real story here is they got into a fight and the home owner had a gun.

Pretty much. OP title is a bit sensationalist. Now, did this altercation require deadly force in the name of self defense? Who knows.

 

[Gravy Boat]

Yes, hypothetical situations and I don't own gun. I am opposed to taking life of any kind, but if I were put in that situation. There would be no hesitation to injure or threaten the burglar.

Like I said before, I wouldn't shoot to kill or shoot someone that is running away.

You're not that opposed to it if you're willing to do it over a simple burglar, the vast overwhelming majority of which end with no victims from either side. Talking about injuring them with a gun is nonsense. Unless you're heavily trained, no way in hell are you going to shoot to injure in a scenario as unexpected and pressurised as a break in.

 

[Iorv3th]

Yes, hypothetical situations and I don't own gun. I am opposed to taking life of any kind, but if I were put in that situation. There would be no hesitation to injure or threaten the burglar.

Like I said before, I wouldn't shoot to kill or shoot someone that is running away.

The chances of getting hurt are also greatly reduced by buying a burglar alarm and locking yourself in the bedroom. You're also insanely paranoid if you assume that anyone breaking into your house is there to hurt you or your family. The amount that something like that happens randomly is practically 0. You may as well spend you life walking around in a rubber suit to protect yourself from getting hit by lightning because that's far more likely.

And I'm not making an assumption, you literally said 'If someone breaks into my house, you bet your ass I'll shoot.' What assumption am I making? I'm responding to something you explicitly said.

It does happen. A guy that came to the place I work at somewhat frequently (before this happened) had someone on meth stealing a bunch of shit and walking outside, he just locked the door and then the guy started battering the door with his shoulder until he broke the door down and got inside yelling things at him. The homeowner ended up shooting him. The locked door wasn't enough to protect him. This is just one situation I know of within 15 miles of me. Another one a few blocks away from where I live (and I live in a nice neighborhood) a guy was stalking a guys girlfriend and breaking into his house. The last time he broke in after the guy talked to police about it and the homeowner shot him.

It's not unreasonable to want to protect yourself. Sometimes you can't just lock yourself away and wait on the police.

You're not that opposed to it if you're willing to do it over a simple burglar, the vast overwhelming majority of which end with no victims from either side. Talking about injuring them with a gun is nonsense. Unless you're heavily trained, no way in hell are you going to shoot to injure in a scenario as unexpected and pressurised as a break in.

I'm pretty sure the homeowner is the victim.

 

[SturokBGD]

Listen to you people. "Defending my property". It's a fucking car.

 

[Gravy Boat]

It does happen. A guy that came to the place I work at somewhat frequently (before this happened) had someone on meth stealing a bunch of shit and walking outside, he just locked the door and then the guy started battering the door with his shoulder until he broke the door down and got inside yelling things at him. The homeowner ended up shooting him. The locked door wasn't enough to protect him. This is just one situation I know of within 15 miles of me. Another one a few blocks away from where I live (and I live in a nice neighborhood) a guy was stalking a guys girlfriend and breaking into his house. The last time he broke in after the guy talked to police about it and the homeowner shot him.

It's not unreasonable to want to protect yourself. Sometimes you can't just lock yourself away and wait on the police.



I'm pretty sure the homeowner is the victim.

No one said it doesn't happen, not me at least. But it doesn't happen often enough to be something you should even think about preparing for. Like I said, you may as well be preparing to be struck by lightning every waking minute because that's far more likely.

Also, sorry, 'casualties' then. Although I suspect you knew what I was getting at and we're just being pedantic.

 

[diablos991]

I would arm myself and confront the person(s) on my property damaging my property.

If at any point I felt this person was a threat to myself or my family I would respond accordingly and vehemently defend my family's life and property.

I'm not going to sit by passively while some scumbag rummages through my shit. That scumbag will either GTFO or get an altercation. Passive behavior would only encourage more acumbags to do the same.

 

[ironcreed]

Listen to you people. "Defending my property". It's a fucking car.

Yes, I should not even attempt to stop them. Better yet, perhaps I should ask him if he would like to come inside for some coffee and then I can just hand him the keys and wave goodbye as he drives off.

Sorry, I am not going to just watch as someone tries to steal my shit and hope that the police can maybe find him and retrieve it. If you are wired that way, then more power to you. I am not and am well within my rights to try and stop a piece of shit burglar. Not talking about with fucking guns, either.

 

[Watevaman]

At my current house, you would really have to go out of your way to get to our cars so I would treat it as a planned and deliberate action. I would probably step outside with my gun but not with the intent on using it. I would hope to keep the thief in place until cops arrived. At my house, the cops would take a minimum of twenty minutes to arrive unless one was already on my street, so it would really suck to just rely on them.

And I'm pretty sure its illegal everywhere to shoot a fleeing suspect, so if the thief ran I'd just sit there and pout.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Passive behavior would only encourage more acumbags to do the same.

Is there some facebook group where the scumbags go to meet to tell one another where to hit?

 

[Gravy Boat]

Yes, I should not even attempt to stop them. Better yet, perhaps I should ask him if he would like to come inside for some coffee and then I can just hand him the keys and wave goodbye as he drives off.

Sorry, I am not going to just watch as someone tries to steal my shit and hope that the police can maybe find him and retrieve it. If you are wired that way, then more power to you. I am not and am well within my rights to try and stop a piece of shit burglar. Not talking about with fucking guns, either.

Yes, because there's no middle ground between giving them the keys and shooting them.

 

[Reven]

Is there some facebook group where the scumbags go to meet to tell one another where to hit?

Scumbags tend to have other scumbag friends.

 

[ironcreed]

Yes, because there's no middle ground between giving them the keys and shooting them.

Sarcasm is not your strong suit, it would seem. My second paragraph elaborates.

 

[Gravy Boat]

Sarcasm is not your strong suit, it would seem. My second paragraph elaborates.

Not really? Unless you're talking about the 'and not talking about with guns' bit, which easily reads as you not talking about burglars with guns. I'm sorry if I've misread that.

 

[SummitAve]

I have insurance. Take whatever you want. You'd have to pay me millions to deal with the repercussions of shooting/killing somebody, even if completely warranted. It just doesn't seem like an even trade as I value my mental and physical health in the millions (at least) so they can just take whatever.

 

[diablos991]

Is there some facebook group where the scumbags go to meet to tell one another where to hit?

Scumbags have networking skills just like any other human.

I'm never one to be passive and take it. I've met the challenges of my life head on and direct which has worked so far. Dealing with pieces of shit is no different; take them head on while calculating the risks and being prepared to mitigate said risks.

 

[DrGonzo615]

I never carry any of my guns so I probably wouldnt have it at all.

If I was carrying, I definitely wouldnt keep it loaded.

I might draw on the guy with an empty gun but would never shoot somebody for stealing my car. I have insurance, the car will be replaced.

 

[SturokBGD]

Yes, I should not even attempt to stop them. Better yet, perhaps I should ask him if he would like to come inside for some coffee and then I can just hand him the keys and wave goodbye as he drives off.

Sorry, I am not going to just watch as someone tries to steal my shit and hope that the police can maybe find him and retrieve it. If you are wired that way, then more power to you. I am not and am well within my rights to try and stop a piece of shit burglar. Not talking about with fucking guns, either.

That's quite the leap when the discussion is literally whether or not you'd kill someone.

 

[ironcreed]

Not really? Unless you're talking about the 'and not talking about with guns' bit, which easily reads as you not talking about burglars with guns. I'm sorry if I've misread that.

LOL.

Sorry, I am not going to just watch as someone tries to steal my shit and hope that the police can maybe find him and retrieve it. If you are wired that way, then more power to you. I am not and am well within my rights to try and stop a piece of shit burglar. Not talking about with fucking guns, either.

Seems pretty clear to me. I am not going to just hide and let someone steal my stuff, man. If that is how you roll, then good luck with that.

 

[ironcreed]

That's quite the leap when the discussion is literally whether or not you'd kill someone.

And as I said earlier, no way would I ever do that unless I was forced into a life or death situation. But that does not mean that I will not try and protect my property by other means of force and subdue the perp until the police arrive. I am not defenseless.

 

[Ekdrm2d1]

Listen to you people. "Defending my property". It's a fucking car.

 

[Gravy Boat]

LOL.



Seems pretty clear to me. I am not going to just hide and let someone steal my stuff, man. If that is how you roll, then good luck with that.

Ok? Who said you had to do that? I never said I would do that. Given the fact this thread is asking 'would you kill' I'm not sure why you think I would have assumed you were talking about anything else other than killing.

 

[ironcreed]

Ok? Who said you had to do that? I never said I would do that. Given the fact this thread is asking 'would you kill' I'm not sure why you think I would have assumed you were talking about anything else other than killing.

Because I said before that I would never try and shoot (I don't own any guns and never have) let alone kill someone trying to steal my car or whatever. I merely said that I would not simply stand idle while they did and it sure seemed like you were offended by me even taking any action at all.

 

[Gravy Boat]

Because I said before that I would never try and shoot (I don't own any guns and never have) let alone kill someone trying to steal my car or whatever. I merely said that I would not simply stand idle while they did and it sure seemed like you were offended by me even taking any action at all.

Nothing in the post I quoted mentioned that though, and with the context of the thread it sure sounded like you were talking about killing. Just seems like a misunderstanding.

 

[ironcreed]

Nothing in the post I quoted mentioned that though, and with the context of the thread it sure sounded like you were talking about killing. Just seems like a misunderstanding.

It must be. Go read my earlier posts.

 

[E92 M3]

You're not that opposed to it if you're willing to do it over a simple burglar, the vast overwhelming majority of which end with no victims from either side. Talking about injuring them with a gun is nonsense. Unless you're heavily trained, no way in hell are you going to shoot to injure in a scenario as unexpected and pressurised as a break in.

"Simple burglar" Man, you're really marginalizing the victims. Just because you didn't get hurt, thankfully, doesn't mean that others don't. I will never feel sorry for someone that gets shot while burglarizing a house. If people don't want to get shot, they should stop being a thief.

Also, if a firearm were to ever be purchased, I'd make sure to take a decent amount of courses on using it properly.

 

[Gravy Boat]

"Simple burglar" Man, you're really marginalizing the victims. Just because you didn't get hurt, thankfully, doesn't mean that others don't. I will never feel sorry for someone that gets shot while burglarizing a house. If people don't want to get shot, they should stop being a thief.

Also, if a firearm were to ever be purchased, I'd make sure to take a decent amount of courses on using it properly.

I'm not marginalising anything, I'm talking about he overwhelming majority of burglaries where no one gets hurt.

 

[Cocaloch]

I'm in immediate danger of getting my car stolen. Why do you seem to think it's ok for people to just take what they want without facing risk of repercussion?

Why are the options you have to either be okay with murdering someone or are fine with theft? Do you really not see any possible middle ground between those two options?

"Simple burglar" Man, you're really marginalizing the victims. Just because you didn't get hurt, thankfully, doesn't mean that others don't. I will never feel sorry for someone that gets shot while burglarizing a house. If people don't want to get shot, they should stop being a thief.

Also, if a firearm were to ever be purchased, I'd make sure to take a decent amount of courses on using it properly.

I'd say if someone was shot for trying to steal some stuff they are a victim as well. Having someone do something bad to you doesn't give you a carte blanche for doing whatever you want to them.

 

[E92 M3]

I'm not marginalising anything, I'm talking about he overwhelming majority of burglaries where no one gets hurt.

Calling it a simple burglary is marginalization. What about the psychological trauma from having your home invaded? It's not just about a TV getting taken. Scumbags that decide to infringe on other people's property can get shot.

That's a RISK they are willing to take.

Why are the options you have to either be okay with murdering someone or are fine with theft? Do you really not see any possible middle ground between those two options?



I'd say if someone was shot for trying to steal some stuff they are a victim as well. Having someone do something bad to you doesn't give you a carte blanche for doing whatever you want to them.

LOL - that's ridiculous calling a burglar a victim due to suffering the consequences. My goodness, talk about living in a fantasy world.

 

[Gravy Boat]

Calling it a simple burglary is marginalization. What about the psychological trauma from having your home invaded? It's not just about a TV getting taken. Scumbags that decide to infringe on other people's property can get shot.

That's a RISK they are willing to take.




LOL - that's ridiculous calling a burglar a victim due to suffering the consequences. My goodness, talk about living in a fantasy world.

That's not a proportional response though. It's like saying anyone caught shoplifting deserves to have their hands cut off on the spot. Stealing isn't punishable by getting shot, nor should it be.

 

[Cocaloch]

Calling it a simple burglary is marginalization. What about the psychological trauma from having your home invaded? It's not just about a TV getting taken. Scumbags that decide to infringe on other people's property can get shot.

That's a RISK they are willing to take.




LOL - that's ridiculous calling a burglar a victim due to suffering the consequences. My goodness, talk about living in a fantasy world.

If you shoot and kill him then his is absolutely a victim, much like you would have been a victim of theft. What is your argument that he isn't? I would assume that it's he deserves top be shot, which I think is reprehensible. Like I said just because someone is doing something bad to you doesn't mean you have a carte blanche to do whatever you want. We aren't living in the war of all against all. I'm glad to know I live in a fantasy world where I don't think a human being should die because of property though.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

No. Its a fucking car. I'm not gon kill someone over that. Its a material object. I value it but not that much.

Edit. Oh I aint gun gaf. But yeah still no.

 

[E92 M3]

That's not a proportional response though. It's like saying anyone caught shoplifting deserves to have their hands cut off on the spot. Stealing isn't punishable by getting shot, nor should it be.

You cannot determine the impact of psychological trauma. It can be life-lasting or it can go away within a month. Every person reacts differently to having their fucking home invaded. So to some, a proportional response would be the use of a firearm. Why are you refusing to accept that getting shot is a potential consequence all criminals understand. A home invasion is not just simple stealing.

If you shoot and kill him then his is absolutely a victim, much like you would have been a victim of theft. What is your argument that he isn't? I would assume that it's he deserves top be shot, which I think is reprehensible. Like I said just because someone is doing something bad to you doesn't mean you have a carte blanche to do whatever you want. We aren't living in the war of all against all. I'm glad to know I live in a fantasy world where I do think a human being should die because of property though.

He hypothetically suffered an unfortunate consequence of his actions. All adults know that actions have consequences. And like I said before, it's just property. I will never see a dead burglar as a victim. It was his choice to break into someone's home.

Until gun control is actually enforced in the US, law abiding citizens should have right to protect their property. Otherwise, more often than not, the gun will be used against you. It happens everyday.

 

[King Tubby]

That's not a proportional response though. It's like saying anyone caught shoplifting deserves to have their hands cut off on the spot. Stealing isn't punishable by getting shot, nor should it be.

I mean, it absolutely is if you get caught and instead of surrendering or fleeing you instead decide to put up a fight with the person trying to stop you.

They have the right to stop you from committing a crime against their person or property, you escalate to violence, they have a right to defend themselves, including taking your life if it's necessary.

 

[Cocaloch]

He hypothetically suffered an unfortunate consequence of his actions. All adults know that actions have consequences. And like I said before, it's just property. I will never see a dead burglar as a victim. It was his choice to break into someone's home.

This is a strange argument. Like just because a thing can happen justifies it happening? Why is the homeowner a victim then? They knew when they bought a home they could be burgled.

This is quite silly so I assume your argument is resting on something you haven't made explicit. In fact I would assume the actual core of your argument is that if you do a bad thing, then anything that happens to you as a result is fine. I don't think that's very persuasive.

Until gun control is actually enforced in the US, law abiding citizens should have right to protect their property. Otherwise, more often than not, the gun will be used against you. It happens everyday.

So is this a utility argument? Everything I've ever read suggests bringing a gun into the equation increases the chance of either party dying. That doesn't seem particularly useful to me? It seems to me bringing your own gun greatly increases the likelyhood that a gun would be used.

 

[Gravy Boat]

You cannot determine the impact of psychological trauma. It can be life-lasting or it can go away within a month. Every person reacts differently to having their fucking home invaded. So to some, a proportional response would be the use of a firearm. Why are you refusing to accept that getting shot is a potential consequence all criminals understand. A home invasion is not just simple stealing.



He hypothetically suffered an unfortunate consequence of his actions. All adults know that actions have consequences. And like I said before, it's just property. I will never see a dead burglar as a victim. It was his choice to break into someone's home.

Until gun control is actually enforced in the US, law abiding citizens should have right to protect their property. Otherwise, more often than not, the gun will be used against you. It happens everyday.

And you can't determine that anyone willing to steal deserves to be executed. I also think you're underestimating the psychological trauma caused by killing someone. I'd bet it's much greater that what a break in causes.

I mean, it absolutely is if you get caught and instead of surrendering or fleeing you instead decide to put up a fight with the person trying to stop you.

They have the right to stop you from committing a crime against their person or property, you escalate to violence, they have a right to defend themselves, including taking your life if it's necessary.

That's what I disagree with. I think killing should be justified in a kill or be kill situation and that's it. Nobody deserves to be killed over a breakin or car theft. I'm not arguing from a legal stand point but a bloody common sense one.

 

[E92 M3]

This is a strange argument. Like just because a thing can happen justifies it happening? Why is the homeowner a victim then? They knew when they bought a home they could be burgled. this is quite silly so I assume your argument is resting on something you haven'y made explicit. In fact I would assume the actual core of your argument is that if you do a bad thing, then anything that happens to you as a result is fine.



So is this a utility argument? Everything I've ever read suggests bringing a gun into the equation increases the chance of either party dying. That doesn't seem particularly useful to me? It seems to me bringing your own gun greatly increases the likelyhood that a gun would be us

You're not making much sense and trying to turn a simple matter into something more complex. A homeowner has the right to protect his household, and invader that infringes on those rights can suffer the consequences. It's a very simple matter.

Bad guy do bad thing, bad guy can get shot - to put it simply. That is the current environment in the United States. A person can either be ready to defend themselves or hope that the "other guy" doesn't have a gun.

And you can't determine that anyone willing to steal deserves to be executed.

Big difference between defensive shooting and an execution. No need to use theatrics.

 

[Gravy Boat]

It's not theatrics, it's literally what it is.

 

[DrunkShogun]

Nope. Murder is only ever an option when family members and innocent people are in danger and there's no available option to neutralise said attacker.

 

[Piggus]

Personally I leave this in the corner of the room fully loaded, a round in the chamber, and with the safety OFF, and anyone who dares look at me funny gets double-tapped. I play a lot of games and watch a lot of movies so I know what I'm doing.

 

[hwalker84]

For the simple act of breaking into my car? Hell no. I wouldn't even take out my gun.

Same.

 

[Cocaloch]

You're not making much sense and trying to turn a simple matter into something more complex.

Feel free to point out where in particular I'm not making much sense so I can try and explain it better.

A homeowner has the right to protect his household, and invader that infringes on those rights can suffer the consequences. It's a very simple matter.

Bad guy do bad thing, bad guy can get shot - to put it simply. That is the current environment in the United States. A person can either be ready to defend themselves or hope that the "other guy" doesn't have a gun.

Again you seem to be justifying actions based on the fact that they happen. I think most people would agree that that is not a very good argument.

I think it's very clear from the context of this discussion is that the point of contention is this claim

A homeowner has the right to protect his household, and invader that infringes on those rights can suffer the consequences.

we clearly disagree that the homeowner has that right. Part of the way a discussion on the topic should work is that there should be an argument about why it is or isn't a right.

I did so above, but I'll state it more explicitly as an example. People have a right to live, as a result other people do not have a right to kill people in most circumstances. Someone stealing is not one of those circumstances.

I think your better argument, you seem to have two totally unrelated ones, is this. People have a right to live, as a result other people do not have a right to kill people in most circumstances. People have the right to kill someone attempting to kill them. A home invasion is a signal that the invader is trying to kill the owner of the home. Thus a home invasion is a circumstance in which one has the right to take the invader's life.

The bolded is the root of the disagreement most likely.

 

[red capsule]

It'll be nice to have a built-in device (in your vehicle) that sounds like a bomb is about to detonate. so you can trigger it, and the intruder goes running for the hills. That'll teach him.

 

[Ekdrm2d1]

Personally I leave this in the corner of the room fully loaded, a round in the chamber, and with the safety OFF, and anyone who dares look at me funny gets double-tapped. I play a lot of games and watch a lot of movies so I know what I'm doing.

I can't tell if this is a joke post.

 

[Piggus]

I can't tell if this is a joke post.

It is.

The sad part is a lot of people actually "store" guns like that. Sigh. The fact that you were unsure says a lot about the state of gun safety practices in this country.

That shit stays locked up, yo.

 

[SturokBGD]

I will never see a dead burglar as a victim. It was his choice to break into someone's home.

This is incredibly naive. Life isn't "good guys" vs "bad guys".

 

[King Tubby]

I did so above, but I'll state it more explicitly as an example. People have a right to live, as a result other people do not have a right to kill people in most circumstances. Someone stealing is not one of those circumstances.

You have the right to confront someone stealing from you, do you not? If when you confront them and try to stop them they decide to escalate to violence rather than give up or flee, do you not have the right to defend yourself? If so, at what point does lethal force become acceptable, when it's a life or death situation? How can you even evaluate that in the moment?

I am going to side with the person exercising their legal rights to defend their person and their property. If an assailant decides to try to push those rights to the limits they are inviting the consequences upon themselves.

 

[E92 M3]

It's not theatrics, it's literally what it is.

Okay, if you refuse to acknowledge that defensive shooting and executions are different, then so be it.

Feel free to point out where in particular I'm not making much sense so I can try and explain it better.




Again you seem to be justifying actions based on the fact that they happen. I think most people would agree that that is not a very good argument.

I think it's very clear from the context of this discussion is that the point of contention is this claim

we clearly disagree that the homeowner has that right. Part of the way a discussion on the topic should work is that there should be an argument about why it is or isn't a right.

I did so above, but I'll state it more explicitly as an example. People have a right to live, as a result other people do not have a right to kill people in most circumstances. Someone stealing is not one of those circumstances.

I think your better argument, you seem to have two totally unrelated ones, is this. People have a right to live, as a result other people do not have a right to kill people in most circumstances. People have the right to kill someone attempting to kill them. A home invasion is a signal that the invader is trying to kill the owner of the home. Thus a home invasion is a circumstance in which one has the right to take the invader's life.

The bolded is the root of the disagreement most likely.

The intentions of the home invader cannot be surmised. The smartest option is to protect the household. Whether it ends in injury or death is up to how the situation plays out.

 

[dskillzhtown]

This is incredibly naive. Life isn't "good guys" vs "bad guys".

I do think that once you break into a home or a car, you lose the "Good Guy" distinction.

damn you can shoot people for a lot of reasons in Texas.

You can shoot someone for trying to steal your car on your property here or breaking into your home. It is a transfer of rural times/areas when someone stealing your cattle or crops could mean the difference in you surviving or not. So it was literally a life or death situation either way.

In this case though it seemed like the owner wasn't out to kill the guy or even injure. It seems like he called the cops, confronted the guy and the guy attacked him. That seems like it is justified. I remember seeing a neighbor confront someone breaking into his car. He didn't shoot him, but he beat that dude down with his bare hands. I mean, beat the shit out of the dude then stood on top of him until the cops got there.

I have had my car broken into, I grew up in a home that got broken into. It is a deeply personal violation. You feel like whoever did it is complete scum with zero value for other people or the work it took to get that stuff. Am I saying that I would shoot someone while they were caught in the act? I don't know. I would call the cops for sure. But to sit there and watch someone take your shit would feel so powerless. I could easily see how that would boil over into a deadly situation.

 

[Cocaloch]

The intentions of the home invader cannot be surmised. The smartest option is to protect the household. Whether it ends in injury or death is up to how the situation plays out.

Right and that's the crux of where you are disagreeing with people who don't think you should kill people that are stealing from you. Personally I think that since the intentions of the home invader aren't clear, though I think it's very unlikely that someone would want to kill you if you didn't present a threat, you don't have the right to kill the person since you don't know if killing them would prevent your own death. I acknowledge that I'm taking that bit as axiomatic though, and it's basically as far as this conversation can go.

If when you confront them and try to stop them they decide to escalate to violence rather than give up or flee, do you not have the right to defend yourself? If so, at what point does lethal force become acceptable, when it's a life or death situation? How can you even evaluate that in the moment?

Well for one thing I think you should attempt to flee first, I doubt most thieves would actually bother chasing after you. If you did and they followed with the intent of harming you then I think you can defend yourself.
If you look at what I typed before the relevant justification for killing someone in this situation is to prevent your own murder. Under this line of argument until it becomes clear that the person is attempting to kill you, I'd say pulling a gun, you are not justified in killing the thief.

I am going to side with the person exercising their legal rights to defend their person and their property. If an assailant decides to try to push those rights to the limits they are inviting the consequences upon themselves.

I disagree that someone doing something that is legal is moral justification for doing it. I think what you were getting at above is a much smarter way to argue this. Certainly the consequences thing makes no sense. Just because there are consequences doesn't make the consequences okay.