Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Joe View Post
Allow me to try to resolve this issue. And I'm gonna put it in big, bold letters so nobody can miss it.

They were running away.

Had the two men been killed inside his house, it would have been justified, because the man could argue that his life was in danger.

But his life was not in danger. They were running away. And it wasn't even his house being robbed. He had no reason to follow them outside and place himself, the two robbers, AND POSSIBLY INNOCENT BYSTANDERS in jeporady.

To continue this further, I might also add that, had the robbers been unarmed, and had the man followed them outside with a baseball bat and disabled them, without killing them, there still would be no problem. The two men could be arrested and prosecuted, and the guy would get his precious damn TV back.

But killing them is vigilante justice, and our society has agreed that, outside of your home, the only people allowed to use lethal force in the pursuit of justice are the authorities.*

*Well, up until now, anyway.
Well, let's see.
1. They were in the process of stealing when he noticed them and called 911.
2. He only went outside when they ran with the goods and crossed his property
3. He told them to stop but they didn't.
4. He shot, but we don't know if the intended to kill with those shots.
5. You expect a 61 year old man to keep up with two young men and manage to beat them with a baseball bat?