The problem is that, although I FEEL like the would-be thief got what he deserved, I THINK the shooting is probably a crime.
If the homeowner shot the departed in the back, while he was running away empty-handed, you can argue the shooting is justified, but you can't argue the homeowner was protecting himself or his family or his property.
You might try to stretch the concept of protecting property to cover pre-emptory protection against the thief's return. But by that reasoning you could shoot on sight any convicted thief.
Where's the argument to justify this shooting that I am missing?
but you can't argue the homeowner was protecting himself or his family or his property.
While I don't think I would shoot him on the run there is much we don't know. Was he armed and running to get his buddies? Had he just turned away after pointing a weapon at the homeowner? Did he have something that looked like a weapon on him? Had he threatened the homeowner previously?
But considering all the things most homeowners have to worry about defense of home and self is something that he shouldn't have to worry about, especially in a split second.
The bottom line is that most of us are fed up with the rights of criminals and have little sympathy for anything that happens to them. The DA should have much more to worry about than prosecuting a law abiding homeowner whose peaceful existence was invaded and altered by a scumbag having no respect for the laws of a civil society.
I for one don't give a hoot about this criminal and it wouldn't bother me in the least if the homeowner was given a lecture and let off the hook.
The article doesn't say anything about about where the departed was shot. It says:"“At some point Mr. Mobley exited the truck, the homeowner fired one time, striking the subject," said Ben Bailey of the Union County Sheriff’s Department. “The suspect ran, fled the scene and was found about 40 yards away.” "