[POLL] Burglar shot, killed by neighbors watching home

Do we know the ages of this couple? I'm betting they were retired. Just a hunch.

 

My use of self righteous was when speaking about all the people who are "claiming" that they would go to every length to preserve the life of a criminal if faced with the same situation. It is easy to say there is always something else that could be done if youve never dealt with something like this before.

 

It could be argued that it was, they were defending a neighbor's property, which hypothetically if they were asked to do so becomes an extension of their own property, which is an extension of themselves. So when you say

That's not exactly true in that since the property they were asked to defend was under "attack" that makes them under attack.

Furthermore just to clarify, the self defense laws in Texas say that one can use deadly force, with no duty to retreat, if one reasonably believe that force is immediately needed to protect yourself from unlawful deadly force, aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery or aggravated robbery, so long as you are in a place you are legally allowed to be.

If they can say that they thought the guy was robbing the place, they had the right to shoot him to prevent it as an act of "self-defense"

 

What you arent seeing is that the burglar had been robbing in the same neighborhood more thwn once in the same week. How can you honestly expect them to not feel in danger considering everyone around them is being robbed.

 

Generally it is not reasonable to feel you are going to be robbed, kidnapped, or seriously injured just because someone is following you. There would have to be some sort of aggressive move to put you in fear. Martin (so far as anyone knows) did not know that Zimmerman was armed, nor did he know that he would end up dead. He knew that Zimmerman was following him and that it was dark. I am no expert on the Texas penal code, but generally that is not enough justification to assault someone with a deadly weapon.

 

Yes I am aware of the Texas law but I don't agree with it and think it is twisting the term "self-defense".

One of my jobs is teaching self-defense and one of the key principles, the most important principle, is avoidance. Don't put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation. Laws like what Texas regarding the use of force to protect a third party property essentially encourage people to put themselves into dangerous situations. That isn't defending yourself that is putting yourself at risk to protect someone else's property.

If I can answer you and egr281 as I've said I've been robbed before and fully understand how aggravating and how threatening is to have someone burglar your house. I understand the frustration with how few home burglars are actually caught. What that needs to be weighed with how good of an idea is to actually try to confront these people. You brought up the issue of morals and how you want to avoid those yet the argument in praise of what these people did is what they did is morally right to confront the criminal when there were other alternatives. Leaving morality, and legality, aside my issue though is how wise is it to go and confront a burglar in your neighbor's house when you don't know if they are armed, what they are armed with, or even how many there might be and without even first informing the police this is going on. That isn't brave that is reckless and in many situations things could turn out much differently.

 

How wise it is depends on the person involved. If a 90 year old grandmother does it....probably a bad idea, but if we are talking about a trained, physically capable person it's a different story.

Obviously there is more risk involved with fighting back than just rolling over and letting what is going to happen, happen but that's not exactly the message I want to send. If you are capable of defending yourself and your property, you should do so. I understand that doing so is accepting some risk, but IMO it's the right thing to do. It's the same if you see someone else getting beaten, raped, or robbed....if you are capable of helping them, you should even though you will be putting yourself in a potentially dangerous situation and cowardice or apathy is much safer. That said, obviously if you are not capable then all of that changes, those people should stay out of it and call the police, there's no sense in creating another victim.

 

Why is this even a debate? The property owner asked them to watch the property, so they had legal right to be there. Burglar had no legal right to be there. Burglar bumrushed them out of the bathroom, they feared for their lives, used lethal force. Not only completely legal under Texas law (see: Castle Doctrine) but completely justifiable. When someone breaks into your home - or your neighbor's whose residence you are watching, it makes no difference - and they initiate physical contact with you, you are absolutely justified in giving them an extra half dozen new holes in their body to deal with. There's no "Put 'em up, Sonny!" or any of that shiite, you shoot to end the threat, because you have ZERO idea how that engagement is going to play out, what their intent is, whether they are armed, what their capabilities are.

The fact that this is even being debated here just goes to show how little many here understand about use of force issues.