I guess they used the term "vigilante" in the TV report, but the written report on their web site says "61-year-old robbery victim speaks out." I guess they caught some flack about using the term "vigilante."
I agree, it sounds like the shooting was entirely justified. However, I would like to point out something that's covered in my seminars. It is clear that he was defending his life against an armed attack. However, if the report is accurate, the only thing he mentioned was making sure they didn't steal what he worked so hard to obtain. The article never even mentioned him acting to preserve his life, or the life of a family member.
Don't misunderstand my comments. I'm not saying what he did was wrong or unlawful, but if someone shoots an armed attacker because their life is in jeopardy, by all means say that!! The report on TV and in print could also be the product of creative editing - the victim may well have said he shot to defend himself, but that part didn't make it on TV or in the article. Nevertheless, it's a learning opportunity for all of us.
Regards,
Chas.
