[andy58-in-nh]

It's a judgment call, but I think a reasonable person would consider that any immediate, mortal threat ended when the perp was in the act of fleeing. The homeowner would have been justified in keeping his weapon at the ready until he was out of sight, because he could easily have turned around with his own weapon in hand (re-establishing the threat).

Calling the police in the intervening time would have been a good idea.

[a fool in paradise]

Since the man didn't get inside the house, it would be attempted breaking and entering and trespassing at best.

The home owner would be lucky to see the DA prosecute. I know people who were carjacked (included one who was kidnapped at knifepoint) with zero prosecution (cars recovered, identification still in the car at the time of retrieval).

That would not justify shooting the perp, just pointing out that the police would not be likely to pursue someone fleeing without much to charge them with and little will to prosecute.

I'd be concerned with the numbers of people and whether they'd LEAVE or just rearm/regroup. Criminals don't like to leave witnesses or be caught in their crimes.

One of the stories in this thread concerned a man who'd repeatedly had his garage broken into. Those crooks weren't a “threat” (physical) because they had never been known to attack the home owner (and had acted on numerous occasions). They also felt bold enough to return again and again to the scene of the crime and repeat the deed. Police were okay with it too because he'd already had a criminal record of such crimes.