So biased

Wow, you're a crazy person! You don't even manage to feel sympathy for a murdered child. You even go as far as saying it's good that poor people aren't protected by the law.

I don't believe in God but seriously, you need Jesus

I understand you want the right to defend ourselves. But at the end of the movie they were not exactly defending themselves; they were killing a boy who was trying to get out of there all along and no bother them anymore.

The move didn't at all say "The rich are bad, the poor are good.. ", your little rant is completely inaccurate.

The rich had every reason to take action to protect themselves, those poor people outside their walls where extremely dangerous, without having to resort to something as childish as calling them "evil".

The father crying? Well, he had just participated in killing three kids, perhaps he realized it was a bit too simplistic to defend his actions by just calling them "scum". It wasn't self defense, he had used a lot more violence than was necessary, and then some more, just to make sure.

If the kid had been innocent, the situation would have been more clear-cut for the audience. It would have been like The Fugitive, which is a good suspense movie but not much more than that--it's just entertainment. La Zona is the kind of movie that makes you think. The kid may have been a scumbag, but the unusual situation created in this film raises lots of challenging questions about crime, justice, class, conformity, etc. It's not so much the kid we're supposed to feel sorry for, but his mother. Look at how the cops treated her, and his girlfriend for that matter.

There is no rich=bad / poor=good dichotomy in this film. Watch the movie more carefully.

The boy was a burglar and complice to a murder, no doubt about it. He even admitted to it. I don't know where you live, but "the law" (whoever that is) does certainly not protect criminals of that kind.

Actually, the law defines criminal acts and the way in which they are punishable.
As you might know, in some countries and states murder is punished by the death penalty, in most jurisdictions it gets you a lifetime sentence. For a simple burglary you get any time in between a few months and a few years of prison. I cannot see how this is "helpful" to any criminal or how it would protect them (apart from protecting them from being clubbed to death by an angry mob).

The good thing about court proceedings and due process is that people like you don't take the law in their own hands and kill somebody because they find it appropriate to do so. You know, I really hate to remind someone of the very basics of society, but the beauty of "the law" in democracies is that it is made by elected people, as to agree upon a common standard and directive applicable to everyone.

You might want to live in a society where YOU can define who is scum and who is not. I certainly don't want to. Maybe someone is scum to his vegan neighbour, cause he eats meat. Maybe one is scum to his muslim neighbour cause his wife does not wear a veil. Maybe someone is scum to his white neighbour, just cause he is black. See what I'm getting at? Following your line of argument, you could not prohibit them to apply whatever punishment those people deemed appropriate for another one's "crime".

"the poor are good"
who is good, the one who strangled the woman, or his complice?
"the rich are bad"
who is bad, the teenager, his mother, the guy who left the voting, the woman who followed him the next day?

Meanwhile, the director, cast etc all have houses somewhere very similar to La Zona.

absolutely not true!

The fact that she COULD have died from that, IS relevant.

and thats why we do not want a court, we want a lynch mob!
OMG how can someone be so st....

and all these stuoid emoticons, please get a brain!