Joe wrote: "I would not recommend shooting anyone for a theft/attempt. I have insurance. As stated the civil ramifications are extensive even if justified "criminally" by "stand your ground", and Federal District Court trumps States when "civil Rights" violations are proffered to the Courts." Several people expressed similar sentiment, largely reflecting a lack-of-confidence in the "system." But I 100% agree with Joe on this, of course. I doubt if anyone would seriously disagree. Theft is, after all, a property crime. What we're really talking about here is one of many risk management topics. Consider in risk management theory, an algebraic plot of "probability" vs. "impact." In this discussion, we all agree that "probability" is low. What we're really trying to consider is the "impact" of a serious event, and asses the risk that represents to us. And then assess strategies to lessen the impact if something does happen. And "impact" is not a linear function. In boating, we often have this risk management conversation. We recommend - do we not - having a range of options. We carry spare parts and tools and maintenance manuals. We buy liability, hull and towing insurance we we hope we'll never use. We recommend *always* carrying paper charts because "the electronics could fail." For the most part, the "probability" of these adverse events is low, but the "impact" drives our choices and behaviors. We do these things because we believe "we should have a range of options" to confront an emergency. So, in the spirit of having a range of options... When someone board's your boat, you have no way of knowing the intentions of that individual. In fact, you may not know if it's one individual or a group. And even if it's a drunk, you can't know if it's a silly drunk or a mean, nasty drunk bent on trouble. In Ottawa, in 2007, a group of North Korean soccer players were visiting for an international soccer tournament. Those "kids" boarded several boats along the Rideau Canal quai. Their facility with English, and ours with Korean, did not permit effective communications and mutual understanding. Those kids have no cultural understanding of private property. They were trespassing, but were probably only interested in having their pictures taken by their friends as momentos of the trip. Sure, shooting them would be "overkill." (Forgive me, but you get the point.) But one night on a wall of a small town along the loop, we encountered 5 drunken 20-somethings at bar closing at 01h30. The town was otherwise deserted. Sanctuary was alone on the wall, and I had my wife and young grandson with me. We were totally alone. If there was a town police force, I don't know. A police response to a 911 call would certainly have been several minutes or more. There were 2 gals and 3 guys. The guys got into a fist fight and the gals cheered, and egged 'em on. The probability of us being involved might have been low, but the impact... Throwing on our deck lights would only have served to draw attention to ourselves. Now, how should we view our "range of options" discussion? Was our range sufficient? Finally, when it comes to civil rights violations and civil suits, I agree again with Joe. Certainly to be avoided. But at least for me, not "at all costs." Some costs are just too high. For me, I'd rather face all that than have my wife or my grandson hurt... or worse... Yes, I'd rather shoot your kid than see myself disabled and my wife attached. I am well past the age of being a physical match for an enraged 20-something. But I submit, a range of options is still worthy of discussion. One strategy is to avoid places that have a "duty-to-run-away" philosophy, but in today's world, that's not a very practical approach. But then, just exactly where was I to run in that circumstance? Fortunately, the combatants tired and the group dispersed. We were just lucky. We were completely dependent on probabilities; and, we won... That time... About the same odds as beating pancreatic cancer, but better than the odds of winning the Powerball. Some people will say those odds are too long for them. Some people want a broader range of options. And note, I am talking about responsible and caring people here; people within the first standard deviation of the societal and cultural bell curve, not the 5th and 6th fringes. Are those odds good enough for you, is the question. Different people will arrive at different answers. Jim Peg and Jim Healy aboard Sanctuary Currently at Charlotte Harbor, Punta Gorda, FL Monk 36 Hull #132 MMSI #367042570 AGLCA #3767 MTOA #3436