I agree.
My property is a reflection of my time and hence my life.
Unless I wilfully give it, stealing constitutes a type of murder since I have a limited amount of time to reconstruct lost life.

This scenario comes under the category of neighborhood watch. Once the criminal element realizes that your neighborhood isn't going to go down without a fight, they will go elsewhere.
Case-in-point: Car thieves in New Jersey travel to New York to steal. WHY? Because the mob will hunt them down like dogs and take care of the problem.

As Neal Boortz used to say, I love a good DRT (dead right there) story. A happy ending for the producers on this one!

I for If and violet for violent. I hate dyslexia.

Yes...and it amazes me that after a situation so many will monday morning quarterback and never consider that perhaps the victims HAD thought about this or a similar "what-if" scenario to be prepared. There was an incident recently that made me think of this...people jumping to conclusions because they can't fathom anyone actually thinking or planning what-to-do. I'll try to remember what incident I'm referring to.

and this is why we should all be running scenarios in our head in every location - what will I do if.....because a robbery gone bad can become a life-threatening situation instantly.

thanks for clarification, jan.
Yes, societies need many types of people, with different inclinations and abilities - and man is a tool-using animal who can use different types of tools.
What I always object to is anything that sounds like it's not in accord with the fact that it is a person's responsibility to defend his own life. Being both tool-using and social, we CAN make agreements with each other about who has primary responsibility for what task - but such agreements should not supersede our own responsibilities.
I choose to use a tool, rather than my hands or my body because I am somewhat breakable and I'd rather the bad guy hits the floor 20 feet from me.

Winterwind - In True Grit (I saw the old version with John Wayne), there were two chivalric heroes: Rooster Cogburn and J, Noble Daggett (the cameo role scrawny lawyer). The movie is entirely about the former, but I remember a mention that the latter had stood off the railway company by himself for the townsfolk (in spite of better offers from the railway).

While 'power' is a prerequisite for 'chivalry', it does not have to be physical power. Many people do not fit into that mold - and should not need to be. In a civilization, enough people need to be martially powerful to protect the people who are not. (This is formalized as 'the military'.) The people who are artists and scientists and authors should be able to work in peace. Almost anyone will defend his own life; but people should not have to do that. It is important that we should BE legally ALLOWED to defend ourselves - and our friends (and our property, as far as I am concerned). We can have police professionals, but we have to have the right to defend ourselves respected by the Law.

My initial paragraph was poorly phrased - I did mean that it would have been nice for the 'helpless little old lady' to have blown the guy away or smashed him to bits. I did not mean to indicate a preference of methodology. Don't you sometimes long for the doddering blue haired old lady to pull out an Uzi and take out the gang that cornered her? It would be such a lovely story.

My point was, though, that it was OK for her not to be a smasher-basher...she was obviously someone who was considered worthy of being protected by her neighbors. I am not a neurosurgeon; random hypothetical neurosurgeon is not a martial artist. I can defend the surgeon and J. Noble, scrawny lawyer, can defend me in court. We can cooperate and create a civilization.

Jan

yes, I see that deadly car crash when the police chase him down crashing into several cars and running them off the road. I find it interesting that we often have disagreement about what constitutes self-defense. It's curious. I wonder if otherwise like minded people disagreed this much at the founding. I wonder what has changed, other than the level of crime? If the property is forcibly taken from you and you or someone else is physically harmed, why would you hesitate? Thieves count on that

as I said to edweaver, a reasonable response to not knowing just what happened.
And there's property, and property. My stereo, camera, computer, things like that are replaceable. There are other things that have enough "attached sentimental value" that I would be willing to protest their theft with deadly force.

a reasonable position when not all the facts are known. We should all think about what WE would do, so that we don't have the "deadly dither" when we're in the midst of an emergency and have to think about whether it's really worth it to use deadly force to defend a neighbor's property. There's very little time to ponder when you're in the heat.

jlc -
I was waiting for someone to make your first point. Yes, it's good that someone defended her - it would have been more satisfying had she saved herself.
I'm curious, though, why you say that hand-to-hand would have been the best way.
I'm also curious when you say that it is enough that there are people willing to protect others. That sounds like relinquishing control over your own safety; you are then asking for something bad to happen to you.
I one is not willing to defend his life, how much does he value it?

Ahh, but again, these men weren't the majority. They were simply the ones that did what was necessary in order to defend their lives, families, and properties instead of relying on someone else to do it for them. Those men weren't needful, urbanites--most were WWI and WWII vets. Instead of needing protection, they were their own protection.

If you own a gun and are willing to use it, you should immediately take a course on the legal use of force in your area, as well as other areas you expect to be. Some states have wide "stand your ground" laws, in which a person in fear of life or property can respond with lethal force, even outside his house. Others have more restrictive laws, including the ones which still hold that someone attacked cannot respond except with equal force - the bad guy has a stick, the defender can use his gold club, but not his firearm.
Know the law, stay within it unless you have a good reason for venturing outside it, and have an arrangement with a lawyer knowledgeable in the field!
Sometimes it doesn't help to be the good guy......

If your state has a castle Doctrine then you are justified.

I think it is interesting that it happened in Maricopa County... I agree 100% with Zenphamy.

You're saying it's mob rule only if the participants are drunk or overwrought. I'm calling any majority rule without protections against tyranny of the majority mob rule.

Praise God for our Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms. I thank God for Mr. Gonzalez who acted and used his rights to save his neighbor. I am sorry when anyone dies, but it is obvious that when you violate Society's laws and conduct expectations you will suffer consequences. It was appropriate the perpetrator of the crime passed away, saving countless tax dollars and criminal prosecution and incarceration costs.

Property can be replaced, but a life cannot. I support defending yourself, but this might have been going to far. I may not have all the facts, but I base my opinion on what was made available.

Too bad he didn't drop him on the spot so the vehicle wouldn't have been damaged!

The best solution would have been for the '60 year old woman' to pull a gun out of her purse and blow the guy away when he tried to yank her out of her car. Or, if no gun handy, beat him unconscious hand-to-hand. That would have been the best way.

Failing that, then it is the height of chivalry for potent neighbors to step in and do for her what she could not do for herself. Not everyone is inclined to be armed; not everyone wants to be physically tough. One should not try to cram everybody into a single pigeonhole - you have the freedom to be strong in ways other than physical. It is enough that there are people who are who are willing to step up to the plate and protect their neighbors.

If the law rules that these noble individuals are 'wrong' and 'have broken the law' then it is the law that is wrong.

Jan
(a 61 year old woman who spent yesterday having a blast fighting a bunch of 20 year old guys - and a couple of 60 year old guys too...)

This is how it should be, no, "Book em Danno", just wipe them out. No cost to citizens for a trial, a man defends not just property, but his wife. As it should be. This recent idea that we should just hand over property we have bought with dollars earned is ridiculous. The looter should die, there would be fewer try it. The catch is when the UN Agenda 21 wipes out the idea of property rights, then we are all lost. Our community has had a rash of burglaries over the past year, which the Sheriff seemed not to mention to the paper, even though he had a description and partial plate number. Finally, the thief pulled an armed robbery in a nearby town and headed back here. The Police dept. put out the description and the guy was caught. Some law enforcement does not enforce, as in our case. It likely is a drug user making certain people local richer. We sometimes are left with no option but to defend our own property and family..

The jacker posed a real and viable threat to others, as evidenced by throwing woman A out of the car and hitting woman B with a car. He obviously didn't care what he did to hurt people as long as he could get away with his crime.

We saw this over and over in the SF Bay Area... and esposed by the media... where we're supposed to lett he criminal element run rampant, nave their way,because it's supposedly "safer" for them to get away with their crime and go forth to do even worse mayhem. Why not a chorus of the poor abused criminal and it's society's fault... I can't wait until we see his pictures as a sweet 9 year old child, not the thug he had become...

The guy toox exactly the right action - eliminate the threat. Thug in control of a 3000 lb deadly weapon? History of disregard gor others? Likely off to do other violent crime in his newly-stolen gangsta-mobile? Hopefully the find the jacker. Face down in a ditch somewhere, becoming a nutritional resource for buzzards.

good to know that

I don't disagree with you at all. If we could eliminate the legal nightmare people could protect their property without becoming a victim of our complex legal system.