[QUOTE=Whacker;2338265]

IANAL, but I don't think it'd really ever come to this. No one is going to be arguing if you should have used a bat instead of a knife, instead of a gun, or this or that. Such is generally irrelevant. The point is, was the lethal force justified?
Actually, my point was that it HAS come to that. Are you familiar with Castle Doctrine? It's the concept that I shouldn't be required to flee an assailant in my own home before I use lethal force to stop him.

I believe the opposite is called Duty-to-Retreat. Many states have this, and the idea is that, wherever you are, you are required by law to run away from your attacker before using lethal force.

So, when you DO use lethal force, there is plenty of potential to have a big legal issue with blood-sucking lawers trying to get rich by suing you for defending yourself.

Thing is, burglars are usually not murderers. I think (!) that a burglar would rather escape than attack, if he was found.
But a good many of them are. I mean, a guy breaking into your house kinda says something about his moral standards and respect for the law, doesn't it?

FURTHERMORE, I think it's ironic that the burglar in the very case we're discussing assaulted the homeowner.

I have taken a vow to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. First, I would try to talk to him, telling that if he dropped everything, I would let him go without calling the police (for example), and just try to coerce him into leaving in a non-violent way.
Not trying to impede on your personal convictions; just thought I'd give my thoughts as well.

The scenario you've created seems to assume that you have stayed put and the criminal has found you. If he doesn't run away just at the sight of you (which indeed can and does happen), then he'll take your kindness as a bluff and do who-knows-what to you.

Criminals generally aren't given to talking things over, so you're on a rather dangerous path there.

The ones that are thoughtful enough to be effected by your pleas probably aren't the type that break into people's houses.

Maybe those ones go into politics...

If that would not succeed, I would probably try and assault him in a way that could not have permanent consequences (physically, that is). Break a leg or an arm in the the worst case, something that will incapacitate him for the moment, but can be healed eventually.
That's assuming that he has no arms of his own and that you are physically capable of besting him in a fight.

You are indeed welcome to suppose this, but don't assume that everybody in the world is so physically capable and try to force your own methods on them.

Not that I'm saying that you're trying to do that, understand. AFAICS you are giving your own thoughts on it which is great.

I will not murder anyone for breaking into my house, I'm sorry.
Neither will I. First of all, defensive homicide is not murder, so even if I killed him I wouldn't have "murdered" him.

Secondly, as you yourself have said, many criminals will cut and run. Well, let me tell you that there are even MORE criminals who will either run or freeze in their tracks when confronted by a firearm.

AFAIK the majority of home defence cases with a firearm do not result in homicide.

I do remember one case where a guy spent 15 minutes breaking into his ex's house and battering down her bedroom door, having expressed certain intentions. She shot him dead.

Oh, and she was talking to a 911 operator the whole time. The police never got there until after the fact.