Originally Posted by Una Persson
Then did I just misunderstand your post? (Absolutely no snark or sarcasm intended nor implied.) Because I felt like you were omitting the long-winded yet critical points I emphasized, that's all.
Some people seem to feel that if I'm arguing an intruder has to be a threat, I'm setting up some huge protection around him. I'm not. In almost all cases, the mere fact that a person has broken into your house and there are people in the house is sufficient justification to regard the intruder as a threat. So go ahead and shoot him.
What I'm talking about are the exceptions. Cases where the person was clearly a burglar but isn't a threat. For example, you walk in the front door and you see a burglar fleeing out the back door. You just caught him robbing your house - can you shoot him in the back? Or you've already shot him once and he's lying wounded on the floor - can you shoot him again to kill him?
These may seem like stupid questions. But there are people who apparently would argue the point. They say things like, "he breaks into my house and I can do whatever I want to him"
or "I'm going to make sure I finish him off so he doesn't sue me"
. These people aren't limiting themselves to just self-defense.