Only in civilized countries like China, the US and the Afghan Frontier is there a death penalty for theft, except that in the US and the Afghan frontier it's meted out by individuals acting in accord with ideology.
Not sure what you are trying to say, Alaska.
In Texas, one may use deadly force to protect property, but only at night and if there is no other way. And no, I don't thinks that's reasonable.
In Georgia, one may use deadly force to protect property, and only if the act involves the prevention of a forcible felony--not theft. Reasonable? To the extent that the forcible felony actually endangers the actor himself, yes.
In the other forty eight ?
No. Now, one often hears that so called castle laws permit the use of deadly force to "protect property," such as one's home or auto. However, since the actor must be
within the home or auto in order to use deadly force lawfully, I thinks it's clear that the intent of those laws is to help in a defense of justifiability for self-preservation.
Do not confuse a stand-your-ground law (no need to retreat from an armed attacker) with a law that states that unlawful entry, particularly if tumultuous or with force, constitutes evidence that a person inside the car or dwelling is in imminent danger of death or imminent bodily harm
Deadly force to prevent simple theft? Unlawful, except in Texas at night under limited circumstances.
Had it been clear that the grove owner fired to protect his property, one can rest assured that he would have been charged with murder. And of course depending on what the evidence shows, that might still happen
The
accomplice is being charged with grand theft auto, but that didn't bring about the shooting, according to the affidavit mentioned in the report.
The shooter claimed self defense. The only way I see for Florida's stand your ground law to enter into it is that it would obviate the need for him to try to outrun the person chasing him with the SUV.
It's all based on a report. Wait until the facts come out. But do not erroneously presume that Florida permits citizens to impose "death penalty for simple theft." The use of deadly force to prevent theft is unlawful in Florida.
I have no idea what the Brady fellow is trying to say about prosecution for hitting an innocent bystander. If a shooting is justified, the shooter is not criminally liable for hitting an innocent bystander unless he acts recklessly, but he is not shielded from civil liability. However, I saw nothing in the report about any bystanders being hit.