I don't think robbing a house justifies killing someone especially when it wasn't even your house. If someone has access to a gun and they are being raped they can shoot in self defence. You need to learn a little about justifiable homicide and killing in self defence. Why was this shooting justfiied because someones TV set was in danger?? Get some perspective.

What would happen if these guys were not robbing the house?? And they were shot because the guy thought they were because you know that has happened and its why we discourage vigilante's, they are not heros, never have been never will be. Have some respect for the legal system and civilized society

Here I will help you out with the question.

Self-defense is crucially a matter of timing. If the defensive force is used too soon in relation to the fruition of the threatened aggression, the force is a preemptive attack and unjustified. If used too late, that is, after the aggression is complete, it is retaliation and is also unjustified. The general rule is that defensive force can only be used against aggression that is imminent or about to occur (State v. Norman, 378 S.E.2d 8 (N.C. 1989)).

Justification: Self-Defense - History, Theories, Modern Law, Reasonableness, Necessary Force, Deadly Force And The Duty To Retreat

They may not have posed a threat to anyone's life at that point, however, these type of people have proven to reject societies basic moral laws, what's to say that they won't break, enter and injure/kill someone next time?

Also, I'm of the belief that if it was common knowledge that citizens were all armed, then home invasions would either stop or diminish significantly, and that's gotta be a good thing......but with your Jewish mentality, you favour the status quo and ongoing acts of criminality.

Are you a lawyer?
How do you establish the difference between right and wrong.....let me guess, you use the Talmud, LOL.

I have a question for you Gary. If you think England is superior to the US in many ways, how come you just don't move back there?

LOL, so IOW, I should let some scumfuck who has broken and entered in to my property dictate proceedings....also, by the sounds of that idiotic definition, I must also turn the other cheek.

IMO, when you break and enter, the threat is imminent.

Now of course, if people respected the very, very basic moral laws of not violating innocent people, they'd be perfectly safe.

IMO, you break and enter people's residence's at your own risk.

There's nothing suspicious about breaking and entering, and then attempting to flee with stolen property.

Quote:

Are you a lawyer? How do you establish the difference between right and wrong.....

I would like an answer to these questions please?

I know it's kind of an out of the blue question. But why don't you answer it anyway?