Sure that's the original topic, but I thought this thread was relatively deep down a more general tangent. Regarding whether or not it's justified to shoot someone making off with an automotive part, I personally wouldn't consider that inherently just, but it depends on the details of the scenario. If the car was parked on the street, then definitely not. If the car was in a closed and locked garage and the thief broke in, then the owner caught them in the act while armed with a firearm and the thief did anything but lay down on the floor or dart out of the door, then shooting them is probably justified. If the car was jacked and taken to a chop shop with the owner's toddler in the back seat, then I personally would be fine with a "Liam Neeson" level of response.

I think the earlier poster's question about the legality of defending property with force in Texas is interesting. I also think the subsequent poster's belief that society would benefit from more readily shooting criminals is a rational claim rather than an unhinged one, whether or not it's a good idea. It's certainly true that there would be less theft, whether it's because of deterrence or by the simple fact that thieves would tend to get shot. There's most certainly some complexity and nuance to appreciate there. Singapore canes people for overstaying their travel visas to discourage illegal immigration, and unsurprisingly it seems to be an effective deterrent.

No, we're talking about pointing a gun at a guy under your car and another one holding a bat standing and looking out. They can then either back up and run away or get shot. It's their decision.