Yes, I know that prosecutors have discretion in these cases and sometimes they may conclude that the homeowner, in a state of distress under the circumstances, might have shot an invader in the back inside or outside of the homeowner’s dwelling. They may choose to not prosecute given the individual’s stress situation.
Nevertheless, I guess you and I will just, as you put it, agree to disagree about shooting someone who is fleeing. Mind you, I am not saying you are unreasonable—hell, it must be extremely stressful to have your privacy invaded and face loss of your precious possessions; I’m just siding with the law
I’m an advocate of an “Open Season Doctrine” similar to the “Castle Doctrine” but which would apply out side of the home. Pull a gun and openly threaten peoples lives, and it is now open season on you, and no charges can be brought against anyone who may kill you. Period.
This would bring down the crime rate immensely, and IMO is common sense (not to mention the moral thing to do).
(admittedly, that would not apply in this case, as I do not believe the burglar was armed......but nevertheless, I always side with law abiding citizens over perps unless the case is so egregious it warrants otherwise)