Wrong. It has to be proven that you are there to commit a crime. If I go into your yard and knock at your door, I have entered your property without your invitation, you don't have the right to shoot me dead.once he entered the property illegally and with intent to commit theft, he was committing a crime.
Geez, where do you people come up with such crap?
If the business owners had a sign saying "No Trespassing" - you might be right, but they didn't. The business owners only knew that they were there to steal because they had problems with them before (as I understood the story). They should have called the police, instead they decided to take the law into their hands. That, too, is a crime.he was still guilty of trespassing, which is a crime. so technically, even if he was just hiding, he was still committing a crime.
Geez, now we are comparing him to a rapist! He wasn't a rapist, he was a thief. What part of that story do you not understand? A rapist inside your home, already having committed the crime "you said he pulled out" - is totally different than this case. What would you say if someone shot your teenager because he trespassed into someone's backyard and hid in a shed when he was only playing hide-n-seek with other kids in the neighborhood.suppose you are getting raped and your rapist pulls out and runs to your closet. is he no longer committing a crime?
I bet you wouldn't think it was okay. How would the neighbor know that your kid was just playing hide-n-seek and not carrying a gun and threatening him and his family? I'm not saying that this might have been the case here, we know that he was there to rob, because the business owners said that they had done it before, and they were waiting for them. But, if the law were applied the way you who think they were not vigilantes, we could have innocent people being killed left and right. And this argument is from those who claim to love the Constitution (the law of the land) - apparently many of you don't know what you support.