On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Black Unicorn wrote:
I agree with Dr. Evil about the unlikelihood of it ever happening, but if it did, I think the intruder is toast. In California, there is the presumption that anyone in your house (at least after dark, though I'd have to research that) is there with the intent of causing death or great bodily harm. He doesn't have to do anything overt like raise a crowbar. So you can just shoot first and ask questions later.
I didn't realize any states but Virginia still held this old "burglary" definition. Are you certain that's current law?
IIRC, last time I wandered through Colorado (I forget the year just now, but between '87 and '92 I think) there was a lot of public debate regarding the recently passed "make my day" law, which basically said the same thing. I remember being advised in Kansas that you couldn't just shoot someone in your house -- unless you were in a room that had no exit other than the one blocked by the person you were shooting. The presumption was that as long as you still had some kind of exit where you could run away, shooting was not necessary. And shooting in the back sort of queered the presumption that you were in fear for your life, too: If the intruder was not advancing on you, shooting was considered unnecessary. As I understand the situation in California, I think Tim is right; an intruder in your home is presumed to be there for nefarious purposes, period, and shooting is presumed self-defense. Bear