Let me check to see if I understand correctly. You three, to varying degrees, believe that an American citizen can deprive a 2nd American citizen of their rights simply because the first citizen believes the second citizen is doing something wrong? And in this case, of property theft, the first citizen's (or anyone else's) rights to safety are not being threatened - so intervening to protect those rights are not required.
OK, so I'm not an American, but my understanding was that Humans were born with certain rights - and that, in theory at least in the USA, only the constitution and certain authorities specified by the constitution, could abrogate those rights. Not some citizen vigilante who doesn't like what someone else is doing.
Of course, what do I know. I come from socialist Canada where we never bothered with the PATRIOT act, FBI security certificates, etc etc