How he gonna get his money?

[RavenSky]

Apparently she was never inside the home, which presents a different picture:http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/miami-dade/sfl-teen-burglary-fatally-shot-20160311-story.html




https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ar-as-he-fled-her-home-should-she-be-charged/

Ok, that does present a different picture indeed.

Directions now are very important. He was fleeing her house--but she was also outside. If he ran at her ("a confrontation" as originally reported) she's got a reasonable fear of harm and is justified. If he ran away from her it's murder.

And finally, I somewhat agree with you.

He was shot in the chest, which does indicate that he was coming in her direction - but that does not necessarily mean he confronted her or was coming 'at' her, though.

According to most reports, she was circling the outside of her house. Did he rush out the back door just as she happened around to the back of the house? I can see her shooting him more or less accidentally even though he was not actually a threat to her. That would not be "murder" but not "self-defense" either.

Did he indeed "confront" her or act aggressively? That could be self-defense on her part even if they were outside.

Did she try to stop him from leaving (a/k/a “Fucking punks. Those assholes, they always get away.”) and "arrested" him by killing him? That's murder, imo.

 

[laughing dog]

Presumptions don't permit anything; they just change the burden of proof. The law is full of presumptions and ways to overcome them.

The presumption shifts the burden of proof away from the homeowner. It makes it easier for the homeowner to get away with murder. So, in the general sense of "permit", presumptions most certainly do permit.

Proving that you staged the incident in the false belief that you had found some loophole allowing you to murder people would obviously overcome the presumptions I've mentioned.

And proving could be very hard.

See the Little Falls story Derec posted earlier.

If the shooter had not taped his murders and had killed them before moving them, he'd have gotten away with it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ok, that does present a different picture indeed.

Directions now are very important. He was fleeing her house--but she was also outside. If he ran at her ("a confrontation" as originally reported) she's got a reasonable fear of harm and is justified. If he ran away from her it's murder.

And finally, I somewhat agree with you.

He was shot in the chest, which does indicate that he was coming in her direction - but that does not necessarily mean he confronted her or was coming 'at' her, though.

According to most reports, she was circling the outside of her house. Did he rush out the back door just as she happened around to the back of the house? I can see her shooting him more or less accidentally even though he was not actually a threat to her. That would not be "murder" but not "self-defense" either.

Did he indeed "confront" her or act aggressively? That could be self-defense on her part even if they were outside.

Did she try to stop him from leaving (a/k/a “Fucking punks. Those assholes, they always get away.”) and "arrested" him by killing him? That's murder, imo.

If it was a case of bad luck, him exiting and running at her without knowing she was there, too bad. She walks. With the shot being in the chest I find it very unlikely he was trying to get away at that point.

 

[Jayjay]

A lot of very simple questions.

If you understand what I am saying, then you should just raise a coherent objection instead of asking baby questions.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, then you should not object to it.

So do you really need me to walk you though it all, or do you have an actual objection you'd like to state?

ABE: I mean this sincerely.

You propose that the presumption is that someone who is not authorized to be in a home can be killed by someone who is. I have pointed out that permits someone to plan the perfect murder: privately invite a person into his/her home where there are no witnesses, order them out, and then kill them when they do not immediately comply.

Why would you have to "privately" order the person out, if there are no witnesses and if the original invitation is just as private? Just tell the cops the guy was in your home and you thought he was a burglar. It might be hard to convince the police if you knew the victim and there are no signs of breaking in though.

 

[RavenSky]

And finally, I somewhat agree with you.

He was shot in the chest, which does indicate that he was coming in her direction - but that does not necessarily mean he confronted her or was coming 'at' her, though.

According to most reports, she was circling the outside of her house. Did he rush out the back door just as she happened around to the back of the house? I can see her shooting him more or less accidentally even though he was not actually a threat to her. That would not be "murder" but not "self-defense" either.

Did he indeed "confront" her or act aggressively? That could be self-defense on her part even if they were outside.

Did she try to stop him from leaving (a/k/a “Fucking punks. Those assholes, they always get away.”) and "arrested" him by killing him? That's murder, imo.

If it was a case of bad luck, him exiting and running at her without knowing she was there, too bad. She walks.

While I would not say it with that attitude, I would agree that she likely didn't break any laws in this hypothetical

With the shot being in the chest I find it very unlikely he was trying to get away at that point.

I disagree completely. He was obviously trying to get away given that he exited the house.

 

[laughing dog]

If it was a case of bad luck, him exiting and running at her without knowing she was there, too bad. She walks. With the shot being in the chest I find it very unlikely he was trying to get away at that point.

One would think before anyone interested in making a relatively disinterested assessment of a likelihood, one would want to know
1) how far away the victim was from the shooter,
2) was the victim approaching the shooter or not, and
3) did the shooter entice the victim to turn around.

 

[bilby]

The problem with being a burglar is that people do not like burglars. And if you get caught in the act, a burglar may well get shot. That sort of goes with the job of burglar.

Not in the civilised world; this is something that is true in the USA, but not true at all in the other 95% of the world.

I'm perfectly fine with making burglary a risky endeavour, with jail as a likely outcome, as this deters people from seeing burglary as an easy way to make a living.

I'm not fine at all with capital punishment, except for the most heinous of crimes, and even then only where guilt is very clear and no real doubt remains - perhaps it was OK to execute Osama bin Laden; but that's the only case I can think of where execution doesn't seem to me to be a risky and excessive punishment.

Death for breaking and entering? That's medieval shit. Civilised people find the very idea of such disproportionate response vile.

Americans say weird things at this point like 'Well if you see a person in your house stealing your stuff, should you let him get away?', to which the answer is, of course, 'if the only other option is lethal force, then YES! What the fuck is wrong with you??'; at which point they usually say that you have to assume an intruder intends to kill you and your family, so killing him first is the only safe option - at which point, the contact details of a psychiatrist specialising in paranoid delusions would come in handy.

One might whine, "It wasn't fair" but hey, he knew the possibility when he decided to be a burglar. So I am not all that sympathetic to his plight, I'll have to say. But it's a shame to throw away your life trying this sort of stunt. But it was his choice to take a chance. Whether the shooter ends up being prosecuted I don't know. In some places, its possible no jury would convict.

But the choice is left up to all wanna be burglars. You act may well cost you your life. Do you feel lucky, punk!

And yet, in the rest of the developed world, where the worst that is likely to happen to a burglar is apprehension and subsequent imprisonment, burglary is not endemic. Suggesting that despite the massive shadenfreude boost Americans get from hearing of the deaths of petty criminals, these deaths are valueless to society. They have little effect on the incidence of burglary; so why does it matter that 'he chose to take the risk?' - the risk didn't deter. The death penalty for that choice - poor though the choice may be - is massively disproportionate.

Killing people - even if they are about to walk off with your TV set - is not something civilised people do.

I find it strange that it is even necessary to point this out to anyone in the twenty-first century.

 

[arkirk]

Not in the civilised world; this is something that is true in the USA, but not true at all in the other 95% of the world.

I'm perfectly fine with making burglary a risky endeavour, with jail as a likely outcome, as this deters people from seeing burglary as an easy way to make a living.

I'm not fine at all with capital punishment, except for the most heinous of crimes, and even then only where guilt is very clear and no real doubt remains - perhaps it was OK to execute Osama bin Laden; but that's the only case I can think of where execution doesn't seem to me to be a risky and excessive punishment.

Death for breaking and entering? That's medieval shit. Civilised people find the very idea of such disproportionate response vile.

Americans say weird things at this point like 'Well if you see a person in your house stealing your stuff, should you let him get away?', to which the answer is, of course, 'if the only other option is lethal force, then YES! What the fuck is wrong with you??'; at which point they usually say that you have to assume an intruder intends to kill you and your family, so killing him first is the only safe option - at which point, the contact details of a psychiatrist specialising in paranoid delusions would come in handy.

One might whine, "It wasn't fair" but hey, he knew the possibility when he decided to be a burglar. So I am not all that sympathetic to his plight, I'll have to say. But it's a shame to throw away your life trying this sort of stunt. But it was his choice to take a chance. Whether the shooter ends up being prosecuted I don't know. In some places, its possible no jury would convict.

But the choice is left up to all wanna be burglars. You act may well cost you your life. Do you feel lucky, punk!

And yet, in the rest of the developed world, where the worst that is likely to happen to a burglar is apprehension and subsequent imprisonment, burglary is not endemic. Suggesting that despite the massive shadenfreude boost Americans get from hearing of the deaths of petty criminals, these deaths are valueless to society. They have little effect on the incidence of burglary; so why does it matter that 'he chose to take the risk?' - the risk didn't deter. The death penalty for that choice - poor though the choice may be - is massively disproportionate.

Killing people - even if they are about to walk off with your TV set - is not something civilised people do.

I find it strange that it is even necessary to point this out to anyone in the twenty-first century.

Interesting Mr. Bilby....There may be something in you that is redeeming after all.

 

[JonA]

Not in the civilised world; this is something that is true in the USA, but not true at all in the other 95% of the world.

I'm perfectly fine with making burglary a risky endeavour, with jail as a likely outcome, as this deters people from seeing burglary as an easy way to make a living.

The problem is you never know who's just a burglar.

I'm not fine at all with capital punishment, except for the most heinous of crimes, and even then only where guilt is very clear and no real doubt remains - perhaps it was OK to execute Osama bin Laden; but that's the only case I can think of where execution doesn't seem to me to be a risky and excessive punishment.

My view: I do not think capital punishment is acceptable at all. The standards required for conviction are not, in my mind, sufficient to permit the State to take lives.

Death for breaking and entering? That's medieval shit. Civilised people find the very idea of such disproportionate response vile.

Again; you never know who's just a burglar. While I am very opposed to capital punishment, I am strongly in favor of the right for people to defend themselves, and that goes along with a general belief that people shouldn't have to perform in-depth analyses of people breaking into their homes to determine if they are really 'just a burglar' or are there for more violent purposes: they should rightly assume the worst and be entitled to act accordingly.

And yet, in the rest of the developed world, where the worst that is likely to happen to a burglar is apprehension and subsequent imprisonment, burglary is not endemic.

Plainly false.

Killing people - even if they are about to walk off with your TV set - is not something civilised people do.

And reducing this to being about just a stolen TV is very disingenuous - as many posters here have pointed out.

Question: If someone broke into your home and you had the ability, at some point during the affair, to end their life, but you didn't because you thought they were just robbing you (or worse, you were afraid what the law would do to you if they turned out to be 'just a burglar')... and then... they murder the rest of your family.

Could you forgive yourself? I know I could never, never, never, never, never forgive myself for failing to protect those I love.

I think it is disgusting that a society would put people in such a position of risking prison time or a violent death for their loved ones while someone is violating the sanctity of their home.

What you call civilized I call regressive barbarism.

 

[JonA]

Not in the civilised world; this is something that is true in the USA, but not true at all in the other 95% of the world.

I'm perfectly fine with making burglary a risky endeavour, with jail as a likely outcome, as this deters people from seeing burglary as an easy way to make a living.

I'm not fine at all with capital punishment, except for the most heinous of crimes, and even then only where guilt is very clear and no real doubt remains - perhaps it was OK to execute Osama bin Laden; but that's the only case I can think of where execution doesn't seem to me to be a risky and excessive punishment.

Death for breaking and entering? That's medieval shit. Civilised people find the very idea of such disproportionate response vile.

Americans say weird things at this point like 'Well if you see a person in your house stealing your stuff, should you let him get away?', to which the answer is, of course, 'if the only other option is lethal force, then YES! What the fuck is wrong with you??'; at which point they usually say that you have to assume an intruder intends to kill you and your family, so killing him first is the only safe option - at which point, the contact details of a psychiatrist specialising in paranoid delusions would come in handy.

And yet, in the rest of the developed world, where the worst that is likely to happen to a burglar is apprehension and subsequent imprisonment, burglary is not endemic. Suggesting that despite the massive shadenfreude boost Americans get from hearing of the deaths of petty criminals, these deaths are valueless to society. They have little effect on the incidence of burglary; so why does it matter that 'he chose to take the risk?' - the risk didn't deter. The death penalty for that choice - poor though the choice may be - is massively disproportionate.

Killing people - even if they are about to walk off with your TV set - is not something civilised people do.

I find it strange that it is even necessary to point this out to anyone in the twenty-first century.

Interesting Mr. Bilby....There may be something in you that is redeeming after all.

What size is your TV and what's your address?

I am looking to upgrade...

 

[bilby]

The problem is you never know who's just a burglar.

I'm not fine at all with capital punishment, except for the most heinous of crimes, and even then only where guilt is very clear and no real doubt remains - perhaps it was OK to execute Osama bin Laden; but that's the only case I can think of where execution doesn't seem to me to be a risky and excessive punishment.

My view: I do not think capital punishment is acceptable at all. The standards required for conviction are not, in my mind, sufficient to permit the State to take lives.

Death for breaking and entering? That's medieval shit. Civilised people find the very idea of such disproportionate response vile.

Again; you never know who's just a burglar. While I am very opposed to capital punishment, I am strongly in favor of the right for people to defend themselves, and that goes along with a general belief that people shouldn't have to perform in-depth analyses of people breaking into their homes to determine if they are really 'just a burglar' or are there for more violent purposes: they should rightly assume the worst and be entitled to act accordingly.

And yet, in the rest of the developed world, where the worst that is likely to happen to a burglar is apprehension and subsequent imprisonment, burglary is not endemic.

Plainly false.

Killing people - even if they are about to walk off with your TV set - is not something civilised people do.

And reducing this to being about just a stolen TV is very disingenuous - as many posters here have pointed out.

Question: If someone broke into your home and you had the ability, at some point during the affair, to end their life, but you didn't because you thought they were just robbing you (or worse, you were afraid what the law would do to you if they turned out to be 'just a burglar')... and then... they murder the rest of your family.

Could you forgive yourself? I know I could never, never, never, never, never forgive myself for failing to protect those I love.

I think it is disgusting that a society would put people in such a position of risking prison time or a violent death for their loved ones while someone is violating the sanctity of their home.

What you call civilized I call regressive barbarism.

I addressed this in my post - although you chose to ignore it in your response.

People who think it's acceptable kill because they assume the worst, are suffering from dangerous paranoia, and should seek psychiatric assistance before they hurt someone (and have to live with that for the rest of their lives).

How would you feel if you shot an intruder dead, for fear that he would murder your family; only to find out that his car had broken down, and he was in fact seeking your help?

 

[laughing dog]

The problem is you never know who's just a burglar.

I'm not fine at all with capital punishment, except for the most heinous of crimes, and even then only where guilt is very clear and no real doubt remains - perhaps it was OK to execute Osama bin Laden; but that's the only case I can think of where execution doesn't seem to me to be a risky and excessive punishment.

My view: I do not think capital punishment is acceptable at all. The standards required for conviction are not, in my mind, sufficient to permit the State to take lives.

Death for breaking and entering? That's medieval shit. Civilised people find the very idea of such disproportionate response vile.

Again; you never know who's just a burglar. While I am very opposed to capital punishment, I am strongly in favor of the right for people to defend themselves, and that goes along with a general belief that people shouldn't have to perform in-depth analyses of people breaking into their homes to determine if they are really 'just a burglar' or are there for more violent purposes: they should rightly assume the worst and be entitled to act accordingly.

And yet, in the rest of the developed world, where the worst that is likely to happen to a burglar is apprehension and subsequent imprisonment, burglary is not endemic.

Plainly false.

Killing people - even if they are about to walk off with your TV set - is not something civilised people do.

And reducing this to being about just a stolen TV is very disingenuous - as many posters here have pointed out.

Question: If someone broke into your home and you had the ability, at some point during the affair, to end their life, but you didn't because you thought they were just robbing you (or worse, you were afraid what the law would do to you if they turned out to be 'just a burglar')... and then... they murder the rest of your family.

Could you forgive yourself? I know I could never, never, never, never, never forgive myself for failing to protect those I love.

I think it is disgusting that a society would put people in such a position of risking prison time or a violent death for their loved ones while someone is violating the sanctity of their home.

What you call civilized I call regressive barbarism.

Interestingly none of this is relevant to the OP, since the burglar was not in the house when he was shot. Are you in favor of the citizenry engaging in vigilante justice?

 

[Colonel Sanders]

How would you feel if you shot an intruder dead, for fear that he would murder your family; only to find out that his car had broken down, and he was in fact seeking your help?

Wouldn't such a person knock on the door first?
And why would it be permissible to break into my house because his car was broken down? If he was in a life threatening situation then he could pound on the door loud enough to wake me up.

If I am reasonably in fear for my life or the lives of others, I have the right to use lethal force, particularly in my own home. And I would.

 

[bilby]

How would you feel if you shot an intruder dead, for fear that he would murder your family; only to find out that his car had broken down, and he was in fact seeking your help?

Wouldn't such a person knock on the door first?
And why would it be permissible to break into my house because his car was broken down? If he was in a life threatening situation then he could pound on the door loud enough to wake me up.

If I am reasonably in fear for my life or the lives of others, I have the right to use lethal force, particularly in my own home. And I would.

The problem is you never know who's just a burglar.

People (even those with good intentions) don't always act predictably or rationally.

The scenario I present here is not entirely hypothetical - people have been shot dead entering or approaching other people's property for similar reasons in the past. People make genuine mistakes - teenagers have been known to sneak in to avoid waking their parents; and also have been known to get the wrong house in the dark.

The assumption that an apparent burglar is in fact an honest and innocent person who has made a mistake, encountered a misfortune, or is for some reason acting unpredictably, is not particularly likely to be correct. But then, nor is the assumption that an apparent burglar is a homicidal lunatic planning to eradicate your family.

Both are extremely unlikely scenarios. Both have actually happened. Both lead to the decision whether or not to use lethal force; and in both scenarios one of those choices leads to a lifetime of crippling remorse. But the two scenarios advise differing and opposite choices. So, rationally, this set of scenarios doesn't provide ANY guidance about how one should respond, unless you can show that one is vastly more probable than the other - and as neither is particularly probable, that's not possible.

Discarding one possibility and behaving as though the other is far more likely than it actually is, leads to needless killings. So it probably isn't a very reasonable way to think.

You have the right to do all kinds of bizarre and stupid things. You have the right to shoot your own foot, torch your own car, or preach the gospels on a street corner; but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to do any of those things.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Wouldn't such a person knock on the door first?
And why would it be permissible to break into my house because his car was broken down? If he was in a life threatening situation then he could pound on the door loud enough to wake me up.

If I am reasonably in fear for my life or the lives of others, I have the right to use lethal force, particularly in my own home. And I would.

The problem is you never know who's just a burglar.

People (even those with good intentions) don't always act predictably or rationally.

The scenario I present here is not entirely hypothetical - people have been shot dead entering or approaching other people's property for similar reasons in the past. People make genuine mistakes - teenagers have been known to sneak in to avoid waking their parents; and also have been known to get the wrong house in the dark.

The assumption that an apparent burglar is in fact an honest and innocent person who has made a mistake, encountered a misfortune, or is for some reason acting unpredictably, is not particularly likely to be correct. But then, nor is the assumption that an apparent burglar is a homicidal lunatic planning to eradicate your family.

Both are extremely unlikely scenarios. Both have actually happened. Both lead to the decision whether or not to use lethal force; and in both scenarios one of those choices leads to a lifetime of crippling remorse. But the two scenarios advise differing and opposite choices. So, rationally, this set of scenarios doesn't provide ANY guidance about how one should respond, unless you can show that one is vastly more probable than the other - and as neither is particularly probable, that's not possible.

Discarding one possibility and behaving as though the other is far more likely than it actually is, leads to needless killings. So it probably isn't a very reasonable way to think.

You have the right to do all kinds of bizarre and stupid things. You have the right to shoot your own foot, torch your own car, or preach the gospels on a street corner; but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to do any of those things.

These cases can be complex. The best way to investigate is to try to trace back the sequence of events and whether the circumstances warranted the house owner to justify the level of force used. Could he or she perceive that there was a level of danger which had to be met by force. I am not sure what a US court would say if a house owner shot and injured someone running way with something in their hands that was exceptionally valuable or irreplaceable. I think this would vary from state to state.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The problem is you never know who's just a burglar.



My view: I do not think capital punishment is acceptable at all. The standards required for conviction are not, in my mind, sufficient to permit the State to take lives.

Death for breaking and entering? That's medieval shit. Civilised people find the very idea of such disproportionate response vile.

Again; you never know who's just a burglar. While I am very opposed to capital punishment, I am strongly in favor of the right for people to defend themselves, and that goes along with a general belief that people shouldn't have to perform in-depth analyses of people breaking into their homes to determine if they are really 'just a burglar' or are there for more violent purposes: they should rightly assume the worst and be entitled to act accordingly.

And yet, in the rest of the developed world, where the worst that is likely to happen to a burglar is apprehension and subsequent imprisonment, burglary is not endemic.

Plainly false.

Killing people - even if they are about to walk off with your TV set - is not something civilised people do.

And reducing this to being about just a stolen TV is very disingenuous - as many posters here have pointed out.

Question: If someone broke into your home and you had the ability, at some point during the affair, to end their life, but you didn't because you thought they were just robbing you (or worse, you were afraid what the law would do to you if they turned out to be 'just a burglar')... and then... they murder the rest of your family.

Could you forgive yourself? I know I could never, never, never, never, never forgive myself for failing to protect those I love.

I think it is disgusting that a society would put people in such a position of risking prison time or a violent death for their loved ones while someone is violating the sanctity of their home.

What you call civilized I call regressive barbarism.

I addressed this in my post - although you chose to ignore it in your response.

People who think it's acceptable kill because they assume the worst, are suffering from dangerous paranoia, and should seek psychiatric assistance before they hurt someone (and have to live with that for the rest of their lives).

How would you feel if you shot an intruder dead, for fear that he would murder your family; only to find out that his car had broken down, and he was in fact seeking your help?

In such a situation, I don't think there would be time to seek psychiatric help. In English law and as I understand in US Law, a person who honestly perceives a danger to their lives would be permitted to take sufficient action to protect themselves. This should be also evaluated by investigating the circumstances at the time. Of course in England no guns are allowed but the use of a weapon could be justified in certain circumstances.

If a person's car has broken down, the driver is most likely to knock on the door. If that person broke into the house or even climbed over a protective fence, then naturally if home owner was concerned he or she could call 911, assuming someone would turn up in time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If it was a case of bad luck, him exiting and running at her without knowing she was there, too bad. She walks.

While I would not say it with that attitude, I would agree that she likely didn't break any laws in this hypothetical

With the shot being in the chest I find it very unlikely he was trying to get away at that point.

I disagree completely. He was obviously trying to get away given that he exited the house.

If he had been trying to get away why was he facing her? The initial news reports at least said there was a confrontation before the shooting--that would have been time for him to turn tail and run.

- - - Updated - - -

If it was a case of bad luck, him exiting and running at her without knowing she was there, too bad. She walks. With the shot being in the chest I find it very unlikely he was trying to get away at that point.

One would think before anyone interested in making a relatively disinterested assessment of a likelihood, one would want to know
1) how far away the victim was from the shooter,
2) was the victim approaching the shooter or not, and
3) did the shooter entice the victim to turn around.

#3 is simply throwing out something for which there is no evidence to try to muddy the waters.

 

[JonA]

The assumption that an apparent burglar is in fact an honest and innocent person who has made a mistake, encountered a misfortune, or is for some reason acting unpredictably, is not particularly likely to be correct. But then, nor is the assumption that an apparent burglar is a homicidal lunatic planning to eradicate your family.

Which assumption is it more reasonable to err on the side of - that is, for an obviously innocent person wishing to enjoy the sanctity of their home ?

Both are extremely unlikely scenarios. Both have actually happened. Both lead to the decision whether or not to use lethal force; and in both scenarios one of those choices leads to a lifetime of crippling remorse. But the two scenarios advise differing and opposite choices. So, rationally, this set of scenarios doesn't provide ANY guidance about how one should respond, unless you can show that one is vastly more probable than the other - and as neither is particularly probable, that's not possible.

We aren't talking about how someone should respond. We are talking about what responses should be reasonably legal.

 

[JonA]

If it was a case of bad luck, him exiting and running at her without knowing she was there, too bad. She walks. With the shot being in the chest I find it very unlikely he was trying to get away at that point.

One would think before anyone interested in making a relatively disinterested assessment of a likelihood, one would want to know
1) how far away the victim was from the shooter,
2) was the victim approaching the shooter or not, and
3) did the shooter entice the victim to turn around.

#3 is simply throwing out something for which there is no evidence to try to muddy the waters.

It's all nonsense. It is plain unreasonable to expect anyone to perform some ridiculous in-depth analysis of a situation before making a decision to defend themselves against someone they have sufficient reason to believe will cause them harm.

Look at how long it's taken us. And we still don't have a coherent answer or a clear picture of what happened.

- - - Updated - - -

I am not sure what a US court would say if a house owner shot and injured someone running way with something in their hands that was exceptionally valuable or irreplaceable. I think this would vary from state to state.

As we discovered in another thread, in Texas this would be perfectly legal.

Yeehaw!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I addressed this in my post - although you chose to ignore it in your response.

People who think it's acceptable kill because they assume the worst, are suffering from dangerous paranoia, and should seek psychiatric assistance before they hurt someone (and have to live with that for the rest of their lives).

How would you feel if you shot an intruder dead, for fear that he would murder your family; only to find out that his car had broken down, and he was in fact seeking your help?

We aren't assuming the worst. We know there are multiple possibilities--in a self defense situation it isn't a matter of the most likely scenario but the most dangerous reasonably likely scenario.