As I pointed out to Vince, this has ****all to do with feeling bad for the junkie who got shot.
I can see rules against shooting a fleeing suspect. You shouldn't have carte blanche right to shoot anyone on your property for any reason. But one is most certainly allowed to defend themselves and their property and should a person be a threat, such as the one created if they break into your home, then people may respond in a way to protect themselves.
You said "This is a common enough trope from certain types of right wing mentalities, and it's just as ignorant and misguided as people on the left assuming that right wing conservatives are heartless and selfish. I suggest you rid yourself of this particular prejudice, then go back and look at my comments again." I believe you should heed your own words.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
I wonder if this attitude extends to other cases. Would it have been acceptable, for example, for one of Madoff's victims to go to Madoff's house and shoot him in cold blood? Certainly Madoff was a much bigger criminal....
"Corbin testified he saw two armed men charge out of a building and run in their direction, one of them shouting “we’re gonna get you” in an obscenity-laced threat. Corbin, who escaped by climbing over a car and jumping a fence, said he felt a bullet pass by him as someone fired four gunshots."
"The three men were accused of keeping an armed vigil over the auto lot and firing on the first burglars they saw. The men were angry over a series of thefts that began when someone broke in a week earlier and stole keys to customers’ automobiles as well as keys to buildings on the property."
So. In a nutshell. Some other person or people (or possibly the guys who got shot or shot at) had been stealing from these three men out of their place of business. They armed themselves, waited at their place of business (NOT at their homes), then fired - with no provocation - at the first intruders they saw. They had no reason, at the time, to believe the two intruders represented a threat to them, let alone the sort of deadly threat that might justify self-defense. They could have armed themselves with tazers and incapacitated the intruders. They could have held them at gunpoint and waited for the police to arrive. They chose to fire multiple gunshots at people who were not attacking them and not visibly armed. If you look to the standards for self defense laid out in the article, it's pretty obvious that the law does not support such an action which is, essentially, a revenge killing.