[beavus]

The problem with a court making a decision on this matter is that the only facts seem to be one dead tresspasser, one hammer, and two armed defenders. The only witnesses were the two defendants who were facing jail time. What if instead of threatening to kill them, the intruder, who apparently broke in unarmed, saw their guns and yelled "Please don't shoot!". It still isn't 1st degree murder, but it isn't commendable either.

[Travis McGee]

The clear lesson is "don't break in, and you won't risk getting shot".

[WL-law]

The problem with a court making a decision on this matter is that the only facts seem to be one dead tresspasser, one hammer, and two armed defenders. The only witnesses were the two defendants who were facing jail time. What if instead of threatening to kill them, the intruder, who apparently broke in unarmed, saw their guns and yelled "Please don't shoot!". It still isn't 1st degree murder, but it isn't commendable either.

Totally agree. They weren't defending their homes, by the way, where a different set of presumptions regarding deadly force might apply. Self-defense is a defense and has to be proved by the defendant, not presumed, so that's why we have trials. I don't understand, based on this story, how they actually corroborated their "proof" since they were the only surviving witnesses and their testimony was implicitly self-serving, but let's presume they managed to do it.

[maica]

What if instead of threatening to kill them, the intruder, who apparently broke in unarmed, saw their guns and yelled "Please don't shoot!". It still isn't 1st degree murder, but it isn't commendable either.

-------------

For the record - the intruder actually broke though the wall of these defendants' warehouse with a sledgehammer. You might want to say he did not have a gun, but he certainly was carrying a weapon.