Those people aren't "bad", they're murderers.

No one here is arguing that it's OK for people to steal essential parts from cars, just that it's morally reprehensible to kill that person for doing it, if they aren't threatening your life.

Livelihood and life are separate things. In the situation someone gets fired for missing a day of work, you should be arguing against the ability for an employer to fire someone for something outside of their control, not for the ability to kill someone for a non-violent act.

The reason our justice system is structured the way it is precisely to take these emotions out of justice. Property theft isn’t a lifetime sentence or death sentence because our society tries to give people chances to make a mistake and recover. The aggrieved party can’t be trusted to maintain the level of impartiality and long term thinking required for metering out our form of justice, that’s why we have impartial judges and juries. Losing property isn’t worth a death sentence, and everyday people aren’t tasked with protecting their own property to the point where they are given the power to kill, you’re only “supposed” to use deadly force to save a life when no other option exists. Pulling the trigger and killing someone has lifelong consequences for everyone that touches these people, this isn’t a video game.

Also, your example of harm is nuts. Someone steals your catalytic converter you can still drive to work, the car still runs it’s just loud. So, see, you own a gun and you’ve already talked yourself into a situation where having a catalytic converters is some life threatening event, worthy of taking someone’s life for, or at least not having sympathy for. That’s callous. If I were you I’d rethink that position.

This seems contrived to me. Cars frequently break down, get flooded, hit deer or other cars, get hit by trees, etc without their owners suddenly becoming destitute.

More to the point, if some other driver isn't paying attention and damages your car to the point it's inoperable, are you justified in shooting them? In most cases, they won't face any criminal liability even (perhaps a minor ticket).

Intention matters in our framework of law. "If the driver isn't paying attention" is a key factor and it means that no, you aren't justified.

No one accidentally steals a catalytic converter. You have to plan it ahead of time and you need to acquire special tools to do so. This is not a crime of opportunity where maybe you find 100 bucks cash in a wallet on the street and you just grab it.

As for the first point... we I don't know how to convince you but those people exist. For us, the privileged software developers, you can dial in to work and submit code remotely. You probably get paid enough and get PTO to take a couple days off work if you can't make it. But there's ppl who are not so fortunate.

I don't have examples of ppl who became destitute, but look at this news story where the school faculty by this janitor a car: https://youtu.be/XqyvWqYVHcU

Look at 0:17 where he describes a 4 hour commute with 3 separate bus lines

Now if someone was trying to steal this man's catalytic converter, and he shot them. Well of course it would definitely depend on the exact circumstances, letter of the law, and charges pressed, but at a glance I'd say man, I understand it...

I agree intent matters. My point is that harm here is the catalytic converter being stolen, not the unfortunate chain of events that might befall someone as an indirect result (and other things that can cause that indirect result aren't even crimes). That unfortunate chain of events can't be used to justify murdering the thief of a relatively inexpensive car part. It's like saying a pickpocket should get murdered because they might steal your bus pass and that's how you get places.

For the record, I'm immune to catalytic converter theft because I don't own a car. I've had bike wheels stolen multiple times though, and that's no fun, but certainly no justification for murder.

I don't think you understand the precarious position many workers in the US are in. We have few labor protection laws and few social safety nets. Accordingly, may people are in desperate straits and stealing one's catalytic converter could indeed have very serious ramifications for the victims life, including losing one's job and subsequently their home.

I think we have largely done this to ourselves, and catalytic converter theft is the result of the unforgiving social and economic climate. That said, stand your ground laws and castle doctrines do not result in lots of murdered criminals. Despite people's theoretical support in this thread of shooting people who are robbing them, it does not happen much and most of these people value human life far more than their support indicates.

My point isn't that there aren't people who are in such a precarious situation, just that the existence of people in precarious situations does not justify murder of catalytic converter thieves any more than it would justify the murder of a lousy mechanic or bus driver who doesn't show up for their shift who could equally cause such serious ramifications to someone in such a precarious position. We don't punish crimes (or non-crimes) based on some theoretical indirect consequences.

The vast majority of people do not react to crimes based on theoretical indirect consequences either, despite the replies you see here on HN. While some who shoot people robbing them are indeed sociopathic outliers, the majority who do are responding to something that legitimately threatens the lives and livelihood of themselves and their family. It would be great if that was not the case like in other Western countries but it is.