[xorbie]

I can see that there is some difficulty in determining whether or not this is legally murder, but ethically this is pretty clear cut. This man states his intentions to go out and kill two people rather than let them get away with a relatively worthless possession that isn't even his. Who is he to decide that his neighbor values this possession enough to kill over it?

He doesn't, at any point, make it clear that he believes they are armed or pose a danger to anyone. He goes out wielding a shotgun, which makes it quite clear that he poses a danger to these two guys. He then shoots these people. He is a murderer.

All I'm hearing is ad hoc rationalizations, based on "these guys might have hurt someone in the future" and "these guys might have been armed" and "these guys might have lunged at him". Well, there's no "might" in his case. He definitely was armed, definitely posed physical threat to two people and definitely went out there with the intention to kill.

People supporting the action ask "where do you draw the line"... well, I'll ask the same. These thiefs are scumbags, yes. So killing them is alright? Am I allowed to kill the UPS guy if he bones my wife? If you see a bully picking on some kids, you just gun him down? There seems to be some sort of fascination with "property" as if stealing someone's VCR is the utmost violation one could possibly commit. So I ask, where do you draw the line? At what point is killing someone over something completely meaningless just not alright?

To say that killing them is justifiable in any way makes you (let alone the man who kills them himself) makes you far worse than these thieves.