Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sheets can still own guns because his sentence was under a year, right?
Lifetime prohibited felon, a felony for him to have a firearm again in his life. A violent felon for life.
His sentence was for under a year, but his crime was punishable by well over a year.
It is what the crime is punishable under federal law that matters not what it ultimately is punished as. For example misdemeanor drunk driving in MA if I recall can be punished by up to three years in prison, making it a federal prohibiting felony (any felony or any misdemeanor which can be punished by over 2 years). Even though a person may not actually serve any time.
Manslaughter has a large range in different states, however the upper range is always well over a year, so it is always a felony.
The overall consensus from those debates have been that the vast majority of THR members consider deadly force as as only appropriate to defend your life or the lives of those nearby. The minority feel that some property is worth using deadly force to retain (what that might be was highly variable).
This was the consensus.
It really is a mixed issue to consider where legal, like in Texas under certain circumstances.
A life is worth more than an item. Yet if someone constantly is stolen from repeatedly to the extent much of thier income is spent replacing what they already owned, they are in essence placed into bondage. A slave to thieves, working to provide for them against thier will.
An elderly couple with little income in a bad area for example may become a known easy target. I have known elderly people who live in some really bad areas because it is all they could afford. They are not quite as alert or capable anymore, and live in an area with more predators.
If they have thieves constantly taking from them, and they spend what little they have to replace what is taken rather than providing new things for themselves, they would become little more than slaves. Enslaved to provide wealth for others against thier will for the rest of thier days.
Where force is certainly justified over property is when the theft or destruction of the property is something someone's life is dependent on. For example someone stealing your vehicle in a remote desert. Or theft of a boat at sea (say while diving or exploring away from the vessel.) You may very well die without transportation.
Or theft of required medicine to live, say insulin (or the syringes) of someone who needs it to avoid entering a coma.
Arson also seems to justify the use of deadly force many places. If someone is out lighting a fire, arguably they may only be damaging property, but it is so destructive and poses such a risk that lethal force is often justified under state laws.
One less clear area, but certainly worthy of consideration would be individuals such as private contractors living paycheck to paycheck who are having the tools necessary to provide for themselves stolen.
If someone is unable to provide for themselves or thier family because tools they cannot afford to replace are stolen, they are having a lot more than simply an item stolen.
A friend of mine makes a great living as such a contractor, yet they have no degree and no other real way to pay thier mortgage or provide the quality of life thier family enjoys without the tools of thier trade.
If they lost thier tools, they certainly could not afford to replace them before losing thier home.
So the theft of those tools is not merely an item, but an entire aspect of thier life they and thier family depends on being taken from them. They cannot simply find a new job, because no job will pay them anywhere near what they earned and what thier bills require to be paid. So they simply cannot pay thier bills if they are taken.
In many places these considerations though are mute. In those places clearly the legal thing to do is what the law says. Also keep in mind that if you try to stop someone with legal non-deadly force, and they resist, resulting in the use of force in self defense, whether it was actually self defense will be challenged. Clearly they can establish motivation for murder, even if it really was self defense. So even in legitimate and legal self defense the consequences can be severe up to and including a lifelong prison sentence.
