[POLL] Burglar shot, killed by neighbors watching home

I celebrate it because I prefer it when people are self sufficient. Is it dangerous? Sure, which is why I wouldn't suggest that most people go that route but I will congratulate those who do pull it off successfully.

Every time one or two people kill a would-be thief or whatever it greatly affects the deterrence factor and that's good for everyone.

 

As opposed to the self-righteousness of taking the law into your own hand and putting yourself at risk as much as the criminal...

 

Of course it might also encourage criminals to arm themselves better and shoot first rather than try to hide themselves in bathrooms.

Again y'all are so focused on self-righteous pursuit justice, and yes that is more a proper use of the term than those who think this was a very bad idea, that you are downplaying why it is dangerous. Y'all are also ignoring that with the technology that we all carry to document a crime occurring it greatly improves the chances of catching and deterring criminals without putting yourself at substantial risk.

 

A dumb and vague comment, is it self righteous to be fearful and of the fact that you're coummunity is being robbed repeatedly and the cops literally CAN'T do anything about it? There is a reason guns are sold to the public, because the police or government cant cover every single thing that could lead to a bigger problem in the future.

 

Then you are basing you're assumption on the fact that criminals will be criminals no matter what is done about it.

 

Sure, but they were always criminals so there was never any guarantee that wouldn't be their idea all along.

Justice has nothing to do with it, situations where thieves are killed is self defense. In the state of Texas, you have the right to defend yourself and your property and I have no problem with people exercising their rights. Of course, if you want to run away or hide and hope the cops save you or catch the thief after the fact, that's your right as well and I wish you the best of luck.

 

You make cops out to be smarter than what they actually are... All that information would have been useless.

Just the same none of that matters because if you invade someone's home you are forfeiting your life... Everyone who takes up that occupation knows that because it's in the job description.

 

There is nothing illegal about following a suspicious person in your car, or on foot. If Martin had pulled a gun on Zimmerman, he may be alive, but in prison for assault with a firearm. He absolutely would not be justified in doing so.

Inherent in the jury's verdict is the premise that Martin did not have the right to assault Zimmerman (or at least that Martin's right to assault Zimmerman was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt). If Martin had the right to bring deadly force to bear on Zimmerman, then Zimmerman could not claim self-defense.

No. The burglar is not somewhere he has a legal right to be. The neighbors are. The neighbors stand in the place of the homeowner, against whom the burglar would have no right of self-defense.

It may be, but the burglar, by virtue of being the burglar, has no right of self-defense. He should have surrendered to the neighbors and waited for police to arrive.

The problem is that the 2nd party did not create a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm. In Zimmerman's case, Martin could have simply run home, or just talked to Zimmerman. In the instant case, the burglar could have surrendered to the neighbors. Neither would have resulted in harm. It was the actions of Martin and the burglar respectively that resulted in a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death, which is why the shooter was in the right in both cases.

 

there is a huge difference in the legal justification of a shooting and it's moral stance/if it is "right" or wrong.

In these cases, the shootings were justifiable/legal, that does not make them "right."

I know it seems like I am nitpicking here, but that seemed like something that should be addressed IMO.

 

That's a good point, also while the legality of something can be debated a bit, once you open the can of worms that is a morality discussion all hell breaks loose. Morality is entirely subjective and often is something people get heated about. I find it's often best to bypass the moral discussion when there is something more solid, like a legal discussion to be had. You can ask a question about what someone "ought" to do to 100 people and get 100 completely different answers and they'd all be right.

 

I forgot to mention in my previous post FIFY to the other response. He originally wrote "right" which I then changed to justified.

 

He would be in Texas if he was being followed in the dark by a "suspicious person" and reasonably felt he was going to be robbed, kidnapped, or seriously injured by that person. Which, since the guy following him in the dark was indeed armed and of course since Martin is dead, sounds pretty damn reasonable.

 

If everyone had guns then everyone would be safe from crime...

 

Nah, there will always be marks and as long as there are marks, there will be people to take advantage of them.

 

The point is that if there is a witness who sees it and could either go and get a gun and go after the burglars or call the police then it isn't impossible for the police to do something about it.

Instead of getting a gun and going after the burglars, the neighbors can watch, video, mark down car makes, models, license plate numbers, and turn all of that over to the police.

The police may not be able to do much about it once it's happened and if nobody got a good look at anything. But anyone who knows it's happening and has time to charge in with their guns, also has the chance to make sure police get enough actionable information to go after the burglars.

 

He was so scared, he called Rachel and told her a creepy ass cracka was following him.

I'll ask this question again. Would it be unreasonable to assume that Martin could have outran Zimmerman? I bet Zimmerman couldn't run 400m without stopping.

 

I don't think you understand the term "self-righteous" preaching caution in regard to dangerous situations isn't self-righteous. Saying that people are sick and tired of robbery that people should go out and take the law into their own hands.

 

To a certain point yes. Most criminals know that there are potential repercussions to their actions yet crime is still committed. That is one reason why most death penalty states have a higher crime rate than one's that don't. Deterrence plays a factor in crime rates but the far bigger things that drive crime are things like poverty and drug addiction not fear of being blasted away by overzealous neighbors.

 

And you have a very cynical view of cops. I can tell you from my own case a few years ago that cops did end up arresting some people and I was called in to give a statement. Unfortunately they caught them trying to pawn a TV that wasn't mine so they couldn't hold them on that but otherwise the description that my neighbor gave them was good enough for them to make an arrest and my understanding was they got them on another charge. Now maybe the Minneapolis PD is just better than where you live but yes the more evidence that can be collected the better the chances of apprehension.

True that is a possibility but that isn't my point. My point isn't criminals putting themselves at risk it is about people thinking they are doing the right thing putting themselves at risk.

 

This wasn't a case of self-defense. Yes I've said what they did is legal but that doesn't make it wise.

And again you are confusing a situation where you are under threat versus one where you put yourself into a threat. These people weren't under threat as the burglar wasn't trying to attack them. As I said before if this was a matter of life and death that is a different matter. You apparently can't see the difference.