@VereSapiens @marketanarchy It is not that the home invasion itself would justify deadly force in self-defense, it is the reasonable assumption that the home invader intends to commit a more serious harm; the home owner is not obligated to wait until the home invader actually attempts to use deadly force himself, the act of home invasion is a sufficiently provocative and clear act of hostility, that the home-owner could reasonably assume that the home invader intends to do such harm that deadly force in self-defense of that clear potential harm is warranted. Therefore, I believe it is reasonable to argue, that it is the reasonable expectation that a deadly threat is impending that justifies the deadly force in self-defense, and not the trespass alone.
I make this distinction, as the determination of a justifiable use of self-defense must be based on the reasonableness of the circumstances; are we talking about a man in his twenties, dressed in black, who in the dead of night, breaks a window and enters the home? Or are we talking about a five-year old, in the daytime, opening an unlocked door and walking into the threshold of the doorway asking if anyone is home? It is not the home invasion itself that justifies deadly force in self-defense as the home invasion alone is only trespass, with possible property damage.
Post a Comment