Worry about legal issues would not be a reason to not shoot. The reason would be one of not having a reasonable belief of immediate necessity.Posted by Bubba613: If someone hesitates to shoot an intruder in his house in the middle of the night because he's worried about legal issues then he will likely end up dead.
From time to time.Sure, the presumption is rebuttable, but how often does that happen?
It has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination against firearms owners. The laws apply to the use of force by any means. People have been convicted of having having used deadly force with all kinds of implements. In one instance, the defendant used a gum ball machine--in an obvious case of self defense.If someone lives in a locale where that happens, he needs to move. Because the law is discriminating against lawful firearms owners in favor of criminals. And that is intolerable.
That state no longer imposes a duty to retreat inside the home.
Actually, it happens in court.The only place lawfully armed citizens get convicted for shooting obvious criminals is on discussion boards like this.
One may be excused for having used deadly force when there was a basis for a reasonable belief that such force had been immediately necessary, but not simply because the person against such force was used was an "obvious criminal".
Of course, legal justification does not eliminate the tragic effects. People have shot persons who turned out to be quite innocent.