I’m sure you’ve already considered most, if not all, of my points.

It seems to me that situational circumstances, e.g. an ongoing disaster, wouldn’t modify existing laws governing self defense or protection of property. Either you have justifiable cause, or you don’t. Of course, much depends on the level of force exerted by the perpetrator and vice-versa. Obviously, there’s a difference between a forceful “No!” from you vs. displaying (or using) a firearm. Absent lethal force by a would-be food-snatcher, I don’t think a defense of “he wanted to take my food” would be a good defense against serious charges brought against you.

As disgusting as looters and other unsavory characters can be during a disaster, I can’t imagine that their protections under the law from an over-zealous homeowner would be any more, or less, than pre-disaster.

Practically speaking, the trauma and expense of defending one’s actions (whether right or wrong) in the legal system post-disaster can’t be disregarded. On the other hand, I'm not suggesting either that one merely rollover and relinquish gear/food etc. Guess I'm saying, consider consequences before acting.

As has been suggested in past threads, I think the prudent course of action is to minimize as much as possible the likelihood of facing these kinds of decisions, by keeping your level of preparedness to yourself, and selectively sharing only with those you trust implicitly.

Not that I’d ever be mistaken for an attorney, but for the record…I’m not.