I might shoot a mother fucker in the leg for robbing my neightbour too, if I felt the need to confront them, and felt threatened, and made a verbal command, ... which they violated. The thing is, these are extenuating circumstances.... I'd rather take a picture of the escape vehicle, or persons, and accurately describe what happened, then kill someone. It's a moral thing, not something I can rationally expect everyone to adhere to, BUT seeing someone escape with ahandbag from an UNINHABITAED house, seems harsh, when considering killing a mother fucker. If my neighbours car was home, and I knew they were home and watched people enter their house, it might be different. The point is, the end game (consequences) have to at least rationally equal the potential threat. Otherwise, you're a psychopath, or at least morally bankrupt.
I guess I'm an optimist, I try to look for the good (within reason) in a person, whereas some people just see the immediate bad a person brings to a situation. This is where some people say "Shoot", and I say "I'd rather not shoot unless necessary".
Crown what? The monarchy hasn't told, (or ordered) Canada to do anything in... at least my lifetime? Not sure what your point is.
Although I have a degree in philosophy I hardly regard myself as a sophist. I do find it pertinent to understand why any side of an argument feels the way they do. Sometimes, the emotional response to a topic can seem as important as a rational one....