Again siding with SnowBlaZR2 on this. If you're running out of the house with a weapon as a means to defend yourself and they attack you, then no it's not intent to use or premeditation. It's a response to their aggression and you had the foresight to prepare for such a contingency. Premeditation would be if you planned on shooting them regardless of their actions when you encountered them.
Although it's not premeditated, I would argue on your point that if you feel the criminal may escalate to the level of lethal force (hence needing to take your gun) you probably shouldn't be running outside to confront them. Double edged sword I guess. It's defensive but you could have stayed inside and prevented the need to defend yourself.
I get the idea of taking the gun for defensive purposes but if you think the situation will rise to that, why put yourself in that position? I'm not going to knowingly put myself in a situation that I suspect may escalate to a deadly force encounter over a truck. At that point, I'm just going to let them take the truck.
You may be completely justified in your use of force if things escalate, but you still have to live with what you do. Some people will be completely comfortable with knowing that the criminal escalated it to that, but I would have issues with knowing that I put myself in the position that allowed them to escalate it, when I could have just as easily stayed in the house.
I can certainly understand your perspective on this, but it's not entirely that straight forward, and likely how I misunderstood SnowBlaZR2 on previous posts too.
A few things to consider. If you're home, and hear someone trying to take your truck, I doubt you have a holster on hip to secure the gun in. So where else are you going to put it? I'm not a tv gangster so I'm not putting a loaded weapon in my waistband. It's in a holster or in my hand. So if I'm going out with a gun, it's in my hand. Held at my side or low ready, yes, but in hand just the same. If you come out with it pointed at the person, I'd agree that's brandished and/or intended as an intimidation tool.
The other thing to consider, even if you did have a holster on your hip. If you're taking the gun with you, I would assume you suspect things may go sideways. In which case a gun in the holster is going to take longer to get on target than one in hand. This is why police clear a building/residence with the gun in their hand, not holstered. They're not trying to intimidate the intruder, and obviously prefer to take them into custody. However, they need to be ready to respond if that person should respond with lethal force. SnowBlaZR2 is describing the same thing, just as a private citizen confronting the thief instead of waiting for police to arrive. I don't recommend that for the previously given reason, but I get it.
100% agree with this.
Clearly I had misunderstood some of your earlier posts, because this doesn't match how I took those. My apologies for the confusion.
Wow, you need to move to the mid-west. People carrying guns and bows here all the time and nobody bats an eye. Pistols on the hip (open carry) going to target shoot or just because they can, rifle/shotgun carried or slung while walking to where you're going to go hunt or target shoot. No issues at all. If some city slicker does call the cops, the police just drive if you're carrying it properly (ie not point it at people). Not questioned, or harassed and definitely not charged with anything.
I forget sometimes that people live in areas where seeing a gun is "scary". Around here, it's just like seeing someone carrying a fishing pole. Which I guess in those urban areas is probably uncommon too.