Actually the funniest idea was suggested by someone in a PM -- letting your pet ferrets loose up the guy's pants legs.
ImprobableJoe said:
Fail. Once you walk away, you don't really have a right to walk back over to the guy. Lethal force should only be used to protect yourself and your family, IMO. Your car stereo shouldn't be worth killing for, no matter how insecure you feel about your manhood. The fact that you have time to walk past the criminal, knock on a window, wake someone up and talk to them about calling the police means that you did not feel that you were in danger. Returning to the place where the crime is happening means that YOU are escalating the situation, and if you then shoot the person you are at least partially at fault.
Not being required to retreat doesn't give you the right to advance and engage.
Ricky B's post after yours was well written and, I think, mostly correct. If you spot someone committing a crime (or possible crime) on your property or suspect they are trying to take your property, you do have the right to "confront" them to order them to stop. "Disengaging" to have a 2nd party call police is simply a prudent step.
WRT civil lawsuits everyone seems to be so afraid of...
Sure,
any lawyer can try to tweak the facts to his client's benefit. But if we're doing things right, we remind the jury that;
1. The so called "plaintiff" was engaged in criminal conduct;
2. On your property;
3. And failed to cease his criminal conduct when ordered to do so;
4. Was given ample opportunity to depart the area or surrender;
5. Refused either of those options;
6. Would not have been hurt had HE made the right decision (leaving).
7. Was seriously injured only after threatening or using force to resist lawful citizens arrest or capture.
Had he not been engaged in criminal conduct OR had he departed OR not used force to resist -- all of which are HIS choices -- he would not have suffered injuries.