[POLL] Burglar shot, killed by neighbors watching home

Except that he didn't simply approach him, he was following him first in his car and then on foot at night. If Martin had just pulled a gun on Zimmerman he'd still be alive and justified in doing so but of course he wasn't old enough to own a gun to defend himself from that ******* which is the great irony.

 

Why do you hate hispanic people?

 

Nail. Head.

 

Child molesters, rapist, home invaders ----> I'm intervening...

 

Two of those involve a direct threat to life, so of course anyone has a clear right to intervene. That's a strawman to avoid the question. So you have home invasion = yes; speeding = no. What about everything in between?

 

Would you feel good if you got killed stopping a home invasion like in this story?

 

Wait - was it ever determined that Martin didn't have the right to assault Zimmerman? That question was never put on trial because Martin was dead, and was not relevant to the Zimmerman case. He's being followed through a neighborhood and confronted by a with a guy with a gun. We don't know exactly what else happened because we only have the story from one side.

The burglar here is in a house and some 3rd party enters and claims they are armed. He locked himself in a bathroom and the 3rd party - claiming to be neighbors but he can't be sure if that's true or what their intent is - is trying to break through the door. At that point does the burglar have a right to self-defense? If these people are armed and trying to break the door instead of calling the police, is it not reasonable to think they intend to harm you? Keep in mind we also only have the story of what happened from the perspective of the neighbors, because the other witness is dead (as was the case in Zimmerman/Martin).

The two scenarios are a bit different because in Zimmerman, the 1st party was initially doing nothing wrong; here, they were clearly committing a crime. But the problem in both these cases is that the 2nd party (the shooting party) is the one that initially and unnecessarily creates the reasonable fear of imminent harm and escalates the situation, possibly to the point where BOTH sides have a fear of harm. My question is *should* that 2nd party have any responsibility in these scenarios?

 

Two of those scenarios - assault and rape - require force to prevent the crime. Burglary (or arson) do not. I'll ask the same question I asked Remii. What non-violent crimes are OK to escalate to the point where there is a lethal danger, and then use lethal force to stop?

The death penalty question should have been asked to the "a dead burglar is a good thing" person. If he believes that its great that a burglar is killed because he can't commit another crime, then it seems to make sense to support the death penalty for burglary.

 

Sorry - to clarify, they require force to protect another life, not prevent the crime.

 

Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean I avoided your question. I answered your question....

Now, maybe you don't have much value for your property or the safety of your home and or neighborhood doesn't mean others should (or have to) feel the same as you.

 

Well I wouldn't feel anything because I would be dead... But I'm a civilian who is well trained and well prepared and I wouldn't advise a civilian who isn't (trained and or prepared) to intervene in a situation like that.

 

Really? How many went to jail over the 2007 economic crisis?

 

You get an edit button when you contribute to the tip jar, link in my sig.

 

Everyone in America pays taxes, even illegal immigrants and criminals. Get educated.

 

It's not the value of property in question, it's the value of life. Both your own life and the life of someone else. Some of you are extremely cavalier about the issue but killing someone often has life long effects on the killer. Injecting yourself into a situation where you kill someone over a TV set is stupid. The fact that these people tried to get the burglar out of a locked bathroom is stupid, legal or not.

 

Yes. I stated that in my first post that under Texas law what the neighbors did was legal. Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is wise.

You have to consider that any sort of situation like this is inherently unpredictable. In this case the neighbors were lucky and the burglar wasn't armed. There could be many cases where the burglar is and instead of locking themselves in a bathroom they ambush the do-gooders.

 

Yes I am saying you are encouraging people to take the law into their own hands. You are cheer leading people injecting themselves into potentially dangerous situations to fight crime putting them at risk as much as they are putting the criminals.

If this was a case of the burglar breaking into their home or the neighbor's life being threatened that would be different but you are cheering a situation when there was an alternative. As you note yourself the neighbors could've observed safely and thanks to the ubiquity of video could've even shot video of the burglar and his car to help with apprehension. Also if the response time is as fast as you say they could've called the police the moment they got the alarm. Instead they didn't and chose to take law into their own hands.

I don't think this is something to be celebrated. I'm glad they are safe but it could've gone the other way.

 

Except these situations are always going to be unpredictable. There is a reason why even martial artists with years of training are still discouraged from engaging in street fights because a street isn't a dojo. Training in a controlled environment like a dojo or a gun range isn't the same as being in a real situation where there are many variables beyond your control. Especially in a situation like this where you don't know if the burglar is armed themselves. What they are armed with and how many there are.

Again everyone is so intent on focusing on meting justice to the criminal when forgetting the possible danger to the do-gooders. Since people are bringing up Trayvon Martin consider that one thing we do know for sure is that Zimmerman got his ass beat by Trayvon Martin. While yes Zimmerman ended up killing Martin he still put himself in physical danger by following Martin, against the advice of the police. If Zimmerman hadn't shot Martin Martin likely would've been charged with assault but Zimmerman still would've been beaten and even though he was armed he still was beaten and if we accept the self-defense argument he was beaten to the point that his life was in danger.

 

If someone invades another person's home _ at that point they no longer value their life.

Your values are your values and that's fine but you cannot impose your values on others... Especially in this country where we go to war over bu775h1t.

 

I have no problem with people doing for themselves rather than relying entirely on the police. If someone breaks into my house or my neighbor's house, it probably isn't going to end well for them. IMO you forfeit your rights when you commit a serious enough violation of the social contract that binds us as a society.

Breaking in to someone's house is a pretty serious violation and it tears at the very fabric of society. For everything to run smoothly in society, we have to feel safe in our own homes, if we don't all manner of bad things come from that. For that reason, if you are foolish enough to be a thief, you deserve whatever happens to you, even if that is your death. Thieves are parasitic predators on society and they shouldn't be mourned.