I concealed carry. I have a bedside gun.
Still, I don't think that I'd set up an armed stakeout to protect my place from thieves. I'd let cops do that. And if I were to be in the position to want to hire security to protect my place, pretty sure I wouldn't have them hole up and ambush anyone with guns. That reeks of a desire for vengeance, not deterrrence.
If they wanted to stop the crime enough to be out at all hours with guns and a security detail, maybe they should have had that detail walk around and make rounds.
I have a tough time justifying the shoot, based on the facts as given. If a guy is fleeing or hiding and not shooting at me, I'm probably just gonna call the cops and try to pin him down.
Similarly, I have a tough time agreeing with anyone who says that a tweaker engaged in at least 3 illegal acts is entitled to any sort of remuneration for injuries sustained.
This is pretty much the bench I'm sitting on.
I can see why the jury awarded damages. It seems pretty clear to me that the shooters were in the wrong, and I suppose by finding them at fault, they make a statement about vigilantism. Letting them walk away scot free probably seemed too much like condoning their actions.
It cases like this where I think the $1 settlement is not a bad idea. You acknowledge fault, while simultaneously not rewarding bad behavior.