Many jewelry stores today are insured . . . And so it would probably be best just to let these burglars get away with the goods they take, and be caught later on. However, it's my view that a criminal that is caught in the act can be shot to prevent him from completing his heist. If the criminal dies because of the wounds, that's a risk he was willing to take to commit the criminal act I would say. However, it's my hope that all jewelry stores would be insured so that any losses experienced because of a criminal heist would be compensated through the store's insurance.
Despite my beliefs, many states have imposed a provision (It is not necessarily a law) entitled the Castle Doctrine, that essentially bestows the privilege of the use of deadly force to any citizen, as long as it is in defense of their home, someone else's home, their property, or another's property.
If someone were to have you at knife or gun point while robbing your store, Your life matters more than the risk of killing a criminal. When you shoot a criminal, You are basically serving justice, As they have no right to come in, Threaten you, And take your possessions.
If an armed thug comes into a store aiming to rob, it's the store owners right to stop him. If that means killing him, so be it. The robber knew the risks when he threw on a mask. If the store can do it without killing, that would be obviously much better. I agree, no amount of money is worth a human life.
If a man is disrupting your privacy and what you own you have the right to use self defense. But, would you still shoot a man if it was NOT a jewelry store? What if it was if someone stole your wallet? Or even just a pen? What if the robber was a child? Or even your child? We first need to rethink of the situation and who's life would be at risk, including your own.
Some may say that the worth of the money isn't worth their lives. I say it is. Depending on how much they steal, they could cause the place to go out of business which means the owner loses money and can't pay his employees. No criminal has the right to disrupt a man's business and the owner has the right to defend it.
First of which is location. In a place like California or DC, people dont have nearly as much freedom to own a firearm or defend themselves as they should. Whereas in Nevada, if someone is committing a felony on your property you can shoot them.
The second factor is self defense. If the guy is threatening or armed, yea... You can absolutely shoot them and claim self defense. Even if they were calm and unarmed I'd still draw on them and would be within my rights to do so.
I say no because then we're no better than the criminals we choose to put to death. It makes us criminals ourselves. I say shoot a knee cap and make him suffer till the cops get there. They'll be in excruciating pain. I'm pretty sure a criminal that has been shot in the knee won't think to come back and do that ever again.
No amount of money can pay for a life, no matter who's it is. Whether it is a thief or a free man, they do not deserve to die. The store owner has no right to kill the thief for the sake of money. Sure, it may be a lot of money, but, it does not equal out. When a person is killed, and their family sues, sure the family of the victim may get money, but does the money ever make up for the death? NO. The owner does not have to right the take the thief's life no matter what the situation is.
Lest the owner decides while I'm trying something on I'm stealing it and guns me down, I would never again enter a jewelry store. Sometimes judges don't have the right to use capital punishment on murderers. Judges are experienced in the field of law, have thoroughly examined a case and have further protections from backlash for incarcerating someone. One jeweler could shoot a thief and the entire thieving community would avenge their fallen hero. Jewelers a simple merchants. Vote no and law enforcement agencies and can be pre-notified of the store items' values in order to provide more service in the area.
Obviously, if the robbers are armed and the owner's life of the life of another is in immediate danger, then yes, fire away. (Just don't miss or worse, hit a bystander.) But if there is no clear and immediate threat, then no, the owner does not have the right to take a life. They don't even have the need. Sure, the loss is harrowing, but any reputable jewelry store owner should have insurance. They will be paid tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars for their losses. And that's not counting the thousands of dollars they earn on every rock they sell, due to retail mark ups from 40% to as high as 1000%. With that in mind, their "losses" are inadequate justifications for taking a life.
Why should you have the right to kill if someone is stealing from you? What if the criminal was a kid who was being forced to do the crime by their parents? You can defend your life and if needs be, kill someone to preserve your life. Now if they are robbing you at gun point that could be a different story. If they are implying that they will use a gun then you have a right to use force to counter their possible threat.
People do not have a right to shoot another person regardless of the circumstances. A robbery is really a bad reason to kill someone. They are just stealing jewellery and money, human life is more valuable than jewellery and money.
I think in this circumstances the shop keeper should be charged.