PP - Perhaps dlance is an attorney or judge, giving him real world experience that does mean something in this context. He didn't say he was the only one with this experience, so don't take it so hard.
Just because I agree with dlance - see my post immediately below Log's quote of the statute where I raised the same points - doesn't mean that a jury wouldn't be sympathetic and misinterpret the law. However, Log's argument about the owner believing that the perp did steal something would be quickly negated by the OP's statement that the guy did not come into the house, despite the effort.
If this
quote:
Seems that many folks here are unfamiliar with the very laws that you would throw in our face...and even more are uncomfortable with the application of deadly force. I hope the darkness never visits you...
was directed at me, and you did in fact read my first post when writing this, then I'll just say that although I don't specialize in criminal law, I will put my tu JD up against anyone when analyzing statutes.
For the record, my comments on this website do not constitute legal advice to any particular person, and should not be relied upon as such. If any person has a legal question, they should consult their own licensed attorney.
Another thing to remember is that even though a person may not be convicted, going through a trial and the cost of a good defense is probably not worth shooting someone over unless the shooter is certain that something very valuable is being stolen. Worse yet, for people in areas with gangs, the risk of retaliation by a another gang member would certainly make me think twice before shooting someone. I hope to never be in that situation to know how it would really play out though.