Go ahead, make my day...

[Del Arroyo]

I think the logic is that if someone is trespassing on your property you shouldn't have to take the time (and thence the risk) of verifying whether or not the intruder is armed and what level of threat they pose before taking decisive action to neutralize him. On the surface it makes sense, and I can't claim to have researched it much further.

I think we have this law in North Carolina, as well as concealed carry permits, though I'm not sure I haven't been here long.

[Kralizec]

Shooting a tresspasser because you think you're in danger, or because you have no time to think about it is one thing.

However, say that you're about 3 metres away from the burglar. He puts his hands, wich are empty, in the air and his facial expression says "oh shit!"
You'd still be entitled to shoot him?

[Del Arroyo]

However, say that you're about 3 metres away from the burglar. He puts his hands, wich are empty, in the air and his facial expression says "oh shit!"
You'd still be entitled to shoot him?

Who would? The stereotypical gun-nut that the stereotypical "liberals" like to worry about is really just a meathead who likes his toys-- he's not a monster.

[Kralizec]

Of course most wouldn't. What I'd like to know is if someone could get convicted if he did shoot in that scenario.