From a legal aspect the good guy is lucky the women were hurt. In most states the car jacker's right to life trumps individual property rights. Meaning you can't kill a guy for stealing an SUV. Had the women not been injured or the vehicle used as a weapon the guy running for prosecutor could very well have a different view. The prosecution of good guys using guns to help people is so frequent now the NRA offers insurance to provide legal council when you are arrested or sued.

A simple case of defending the innocent from the guilty. I people were allowed to be armed and advertise the fact, there would be far less car-jackings and other violet crimes. When the criminal knows that he will be in jeopardy if he attempts his criminal act, he'll be far less inclined to do so.

I like to state the obvious. If we shot and killed more Car-Jackers there would be a lot less of them, AND carjacking's would go down.

You strike upon the problem. If there were no civil punishment for protection of self and property there would be no risk. In that natural and correct society would you have any issues protecting another persons property?

If the answer is no, then why the issue with doing do in our incorrect and unnatural society? It will only be through the people demanding correct and natural society that we will get it. This person in the article did just that with their actions.

Mob rule is what we have today. Not by gun, but by law. It does cut both ways. Everyone is loosing.

What Zenphamy described was not mob rule or as it is more commonly called today Majority rule. Each person had the right to retaliate to force used against them, or not, as they saw fit. Freedom can only exist when one has the right to use force but only when force is initiated upon them. In this story only that natural right was used.

A society which removes that right can only have majority rule, or tyranny. They are both the same thing.

Gave up on trying to get the video to play. Have been having trouble to get other things on my PC to work today.
So as I read the article cold, I braced myself, half-expecting to read that the shooter was arrested for some libtard zero tolerance = zero common sense law on the books.
I was relieved to read that he was not. The carjacker's family may still sue the shooter, though. Such has happened before.

unfortunately the women were hurt, but the guy is DEAD and that is all that matters.

Personally I think this had the very best possible ending. Legally it will depend on state law. Here in Tennessee if the bad guy was heading away from the crime and you shoot at him you are liable because the immanent danger to others has passed. The guy may have left 20 injured, but if he is not a threat at this moment you cannot shoot at this moment. The legality of the situation will vary from state to state, but I think he did the right thing. You also must remember that in many states it is not acceptable to defend property with deadly force. I really do not know enough about the law in AZ to say anything more definite.

Yes shrug; the woman he knocked to the ground was the wife of the neighbor, but even leaving that out of the equation, his actions were correct. Looters of the nature described by the actions of the car-jacker should receive the consequences of their actions. +1

Exactly rich. +1

Mob rule has nothing to do with what I describe above. These men weren't drunk, they weren't carried away by emotion, and they weren't out of control berserkers. They were honest, everyday common men that took responsibility for the environment of their lives. There were other shiftless, drunkard, lazy, and unthinking men around as well--but as long as they lived within lines that didn't hurt others, they were allowed to live as they wanted.

" But one thing is for sure there would be no hesitation if I believe a life was in danger"
Yes, that's for sure.

You're wife is on the ground with a head injury...

I cannot disagree with you. See my reply to CG. All I can say on this is I was not there and don't have enough info to know what I would do. May have or may not have used this kind of force. I just don't like to judge without the entire picture and there are only a few people that know all the details. One is dead.

The thief wounded an innocent woman with a stolen car, aka a weapon, after grabbing and throwing another out of her own car in her own driveway. He abused two woman and then drove off in a stolen deadly weapon.... to hurt how many more??? He obviously has no regard for life or property of others and is on a rampage. The neighbor did the right thing and probably saved others. We should all have such good neighbors.

My statement was not meant to condemn the shooter. I do believe we have to have faith in the individual. My statement is more how I have trained myself to think prior to drawing a weapon. I would not want to open myself up to the legal nightmare that shooting someone would bring just for their property. In fact I may not open myself to the scrutiny for my own property. Much would be dependent on the situation. But one thing is for sure there would be no hesitation if I believe a life was in danger with the exception of places that post no weapons allowed. Then it would be just my own or a friend or family that would get my protection.

Mob rule can cut both ways.

A lot of us ask the question, 'What's happened to our rights, our liberties, our government, our police, etc' ? When this country was founded under the Constitution, there were no police. Men and communities were expected to protect themselves and did through their militias and their sheriffs with the help of voluntary posses.

Somewhere along the way, the American citizen became convinced that we were just too civilized to do such things anymore and that we should have professionals do that duty for us through government. Even at that early beginning, they were mainly night watchmen, process and warrant servers, jail guards, and few were even armed. And as with all things government, the ones attracted to such jobs wanted more power, more authority, more control, more laws, etc., etc. And they soon made it illegal and unacceptable for us to protect ourselves and our communities.

Now, what do we have? I was lucky enough (in my opinion) to grow up in a time and place in which posses were still used by the county sheriffs, people didn't welcome ATF agents sneaking around their properties, an abuser might hear a knock at his door around 10 PM only to open his door and find a dozen or so men outside his door that then proceeded to demonstrate what abuse really was or to be woken from his bed to learn the same lesson. Thieving from neighbors just wasn't allowed to go unpunished, murderers seldom got very far, and a few people were told that it would be better for all concerned if they moved away.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with what the neighbor in this case did nor with the result to the attacker. If this happened more often we'd live in a better world.

I think this had the best possible outcome. The man assaulted a 60 year old woman to steal her car. He intentionally injured another woman in an attempt to escape. He was clearly willing to use force to get what he wanted. He initiated force. Had he gone straight to the hospital it's possible he would have lived. It sounds to me that the fewest number of people possible were hurt by this guy.

"there property and even a neighbors life but not sure that I would use my weapon to save a neighbors property"
I would absolutely use deadly force to save a life but not someone else's property, esp if I didn't completely understand the situation. As you say, there are probably details not included in the article that might explain the use of force.

Without more details this is a tough one. I am 100% behind everyone's natural right to protect themselves, their property and even a neighbors life but not sure that I would use my weapon to save a neighbors property. For me, I think I would not want to open myself up to the legal aspects of a shooting for someone else's property. There are many circumstances that may cause me to make a different decision but they are not included in this article. My 2 cents.