The thing is, this has been a part of the common law for a long time. One of the reasons is because it is reasonable for one to assume that their life is at stake when someone breaks into their house (almost automatic self-defense). Regardless of these statutes, most American courts (with a tendency for this to be the case moreso in the mountain west than elsewhere) don’t want to have to draw the line of when it was reasonable to attempt to flee and when it wasn’t when someone is in their own home. By automatically assuming self-defense, you don’t have to draw this messy line of when it was reasonable for the person to flee.
Thank you, I often misuse the word…Don’t worry, I’m used the grammar nazis. Never, EVER - ever, ever, ever - let your spouse edit text, or your work. It will only end badly.*
*Phlosphr - who is trying to get his first book published and began with his wife as his editor. Much yelling and sleeping in the guest room ensued. 
This is my opinion, as well - if someone is trying to break into my residence, for reasons unknown, I think it’s reasonable to assume that those reasons may include an intent to harm me or my family.
Just my $0.02.
(Said the person who’s fired two firearms in his whole life, and only one of those with a bullet. And who won’t buy a firearm.)
For starters, I think I wouldn’t care to get legal advice from talking heads on Good Morning America. I mean, at least call up Harry Hamlin or someone who sounds vaguely lawyerish.
Regarding the use of arms in defense of home or purpose: I would use all means within reason short of shooting someone to dissuade them from harming me and my hypothetical dependents. Using armed force to protect property is a judgement call; one one hand, it’s your work and time that went into procuring that property, on the other, there’s a significant nuisance factor in even the legal use of lethal force, and shooting some kid in the process of stealing a car for a joyride is disproportionate. (Mind you, I wouldn’t have a heck of a lot of sympathy for the perpetrator, but still, it’s an excessive act in response to a rather modest felony.)
In reality, it’s often hard to evalute what is a threat and what isn’t, and frankly, if you reasonably and sincerely believe that your life is being threatened, you have a strong moral argument for using the necessary force to belay that threat in the interests of self-preservation. But the consequences can also be significant. “Better tried by twelve than carried by six,” is all and well, but I’d rather not have to deal with either if the option is available. Regardless of your “rights” in law, you’ll likely be subject to liability and wrongful dead suits even if you’re totally in the clear, and this can cost tens of thousands of dollars and take years to deal with.
In general, there is a divide in both case law and penal statutes regarding the use of force in self defense that essentially runs along the geographical seperation of East and West; in the more populated East, it is assumed that law enforcement is readily available and that self-defense should be limited to the extent required to flee the threat and call in authorities. In the traditionally less regulated West, the underlying assumption is that peace officers may not be at ready call, and that a defender need provide for his or her own defense. Even in California, with some of the more generally restrictive firearms laws, the standard for justifiable self-defense are quite liberal and favor the defender (albeit not to the extent of the absurdly named “Castle Doctrine” or “Make My Day” laws).
The long and short of it is, even if laws permit you to shoot sillouettes climbing in through your windows or a guy jimmying your garage door, you should probably dial back the response to something that doesn’t result in bloodshed unless the perpetrator escallates it to that point. On the other hand, if he does, you should respond in a manner that is proportionate and stops the threat as quickly and with the minimum of risk to you.
Stranger
Until recently, Minnesota was a “Duty to flee” state. Never much liked the idea that I had to run away even in my own house, and keep running if they kept coming after me.
I also know from personal experience that calling the police is not an answer. Been there, done that. Fortunately the person did not gain entry, but without telling the entire story again, I’ll just say that he spent better than 10 minutes attempting to break in, despite knowing I was there, despite a 911 call almost right in front of him, despite seeing me holding a very large knife. The police drove past my house and kept going…45 minutes after I retrieved a gun and caused the man to flee.
OTOH, I have to say that people who declare that they’re perfectly happy to shoot to kill intruders at the drop of a hat give me the willies. I’ll shoot if I have to, kill if necessary to protect my own life, but I’m certainly not happy about nor looking forward to doing it, thank you very much.
Especially if it’s a Christmas Story leglamp. Oh, the depravity of someone who’d even think of that! 
The way I look at it, you shouldn’t be trying to break into my house. Don’t break into my house, don’t get shot. Simple, really.
This used to be my opinion as well. I’ve had a change of heart as of late. Just because you’re allowed to shoot someone I don’t think I would unless it was a last resort. I would detain them and call the law, but taking a life if I didn’t have to? Well I’d know for the rest of my life that I didn’t have to, and would live with that guilt. I’ve got enough shit on my mind that will be with me till the end.
If they die, they don’t have to think about it anymore and they’re not learning any big lesson here, so this kind of thinking only goes so far.
I, however, have to live with all of the consequences, which go far beyond the physical clean-up and legal issues.
You might think of it as “Cool, now I can post in the Have you ever killed another Human being thread”, but I’m a little more reasonable and a lot less callous than that.
Yeah, you need to be protected in those dark alleyways when you’re about to mug those innocent other languages 
I know the original quote isn’t about grammar
So I have to query the person who just broke through my window as to his intentions? I have to have a meeting about whether I can shoot him? Screw that.
The problem with that being that it’s almost by definition extremely close quarters, and often the intruder can reach you before you can get off 2 well-aimed shots. So if he makes any sudden movements, I strongly recommend you take them as threatening.
Cardinal. this is coming from someone who’s on the same side of the fence as you. I read that in some state’s CCW class, you have to list 5 reasons why someone may have broken into your home with no ill motives. Some possibilities that occurred to me:
-drunk/medically altered mental status person who thinks it’s their house, their keys don’t work for some reason, and just wants to go to bed.
-your own kid who forgot their keys and is coming home too late, and hopes you won’t wake up
-woman fleeing her suicidal husband intent on killing her first.
-person having a medical emergency seeking immediate help or a phone.
or it could just be your own wife coming up the stairs after checking on something the cat knocked over in the living room.
It should give one pause for thought, if only for the 2 - 3 seconds necessary for a second look.
All good reasons (though not the only ones, not by a long stretch!) for why I generally advocate a slide action shotgun for home protection. If you call out “Halt! Identify yourself!” followed immediately by chambering a round, whoever they are, they’ll either pause or flee. The unmistakable schick-chak! of the slide will freeze anyone but the most dangerous, giving you time to assess the situation and avoid a tragedy. Only a real hardcase will open fire immediately, and even then, they don’t know where you are, and they’ve just removed all your doubts, as well as giving away their own location in a most illuminating manner.
:rolleyes: The “unmistakable schick-chak! of the slide” will let an intruder know where you are, and also gives the chance that you’ll short-stroke the weapon and find yourself on an empty chamber. This is tactically a bad move, however effective it may appear on the televisor. The appropriate warning is, “I’m armed, turn around and leave my house, now!”
Stranger
Oh, it’s effective enough in real life too, as I’ve reason to know (from both ends). The sound of the slide is generally not any more localizable than your voice, probably less so. Seeing as you’re aslo advocating challenging the intuder, though, I absolutely fail to see what your point is; Your challenge, or mine, either way, they’re going to have a general idea of where you are, but not a precise one. In my challenge, though, there’s absolutely no doubt that I am armed. In yours, a sufficiently cocky intruder might decide you’re bluffing.
You know my attitude on training; I don’t short stroke a weapon, and anyone who follows my advice on training won’t, either.
I’m not worried about them learning a lesson, I’m concerned with them never wanting to break into my house again.
But I’m also very callous. I’ve had to seriously question my ability to take a life. I’ve sat down and asked myself, ‘could I sleep knowing someone is no longer living because of my actions?’ And I’ve come to the conclusion that yes, yes I could. In my mind, if you deserve to die, whether it be because you are breaking into my home or an insurgent in Iraq, I will have no qualms making sure you get what you deserve.
I strongly disagree. That is a very obvious sound and a heavy duty weapon. Only a complete fool or someone too drugged out of his mind to know reality disregards it.
My sister had a shotgun but no shells for it. She chased off an intruder into her house with nothing but that sound.
What would she have done if he’d kept coming? It’s still a long, heavy wood and metal object that can be used as a club or shoved down his throat.
When I was growing up in Texas, I always heard that if you shot an intruder, the body had to be completely inside the house, not just on your property, because it could turn out to be the mailman or someone like that. And that there was even a legal question about shooting an intruder and then his body was sticking half out of the house, like in the doorway, so the thing to do was drag the body all the way inside before calling police. This was taken as gospel, but I never knew if it was really like that.
As for that doctor and his family, sad news, yes, but maybe if he’d had access to a gun, he’d be dead now, too. Or maybe his case would have turned out okay, while many, many others would have ended tragically but would not have otherwise. I’ve always subscribed to the view that if you have a gun, someone is likely to get shot, and it could just be yourself. One of the reasons I left Texas.
Last I heard in CA if you are in a legit self defense situation permitting and right to posess firearms are irrelevant. A convicted felon and a friend are cornered in a house, friend has a gun but lacks the will to use it, hands over to felon, who shoots person confronting them inside the house, that felon will most likely not be charged with any crime.
Paraphrased from my recollection of the “How to own a gun and stay out of jail in CA” book.
IIRC there are several precedents for this type of scenario on the books.