A "fleeing" burglar is not by any visible evidence a "discouraged" burglar. Fleeing as an act exhibits no indication that he would not come back, either when confident you are not home, or better equipped to deal with you as an armed occupant. So, there is absolutely no reason to argue that planting a barb, or shooting a fleeing burglar or car thief in the ass is anything but reasonable self defense. The only person who would disagree is the thief and his personal injury attorney who hopes to profit from the non-pc approach to criminal justice. A jury of potential or active criminals might, and so might a jury narrowly instructed by the judge to consider only the immediate events. Frankly, I would argue that anyone injured while committing a crime should be held to have forfeited the protection of the law during that act. And, since the police regard fleeing a crime scene as a criminal act in itself, fleeing is not an automatic justification for arguing an injury acquired when fleeing TO AVOID THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN ATTEMPTED crime was not acquired in the course of committing the same crime.