To be clear, we were talking about a theif getting a little glitter in their eye; I understand why shooting someone is controversial.

You understand why shooting someone is controversial, but you don't understand why recklessly causing someone to go blind is controversial?

This is a silly comment. You're more likely to blind someone with the dust your car kicks up as you drive by them, and such a person would be actually innocent as opposed to our hypothetical vision-impaired thief.

Likelihood of injury is irrelevant. If your actions recklessly caused the injury of another person, you are liable for them, even if there was only a 1 in a trillion chance of it happening.

And yes, by the way, if you drive by someone knowing that by doing so you will launch debris towards another person in a manner that could injure them, and your car kicks up a rock and hits that person in the head, you would also be liable.

Innocence is also irrelevant, as you do not have the right to injure another person, even if they stole from you.

I think you're only liable if a "reasonable person" would have expected that result.

Your comment "And yes, defending your property from theft is categorically "innocent" sounded stronger. Glad to be in agreement with you.

Granted. Trying to be terse but nuanced. Glad we got it sorted though.