but he was within his rights to defend himself when they broke in to his home.
No he wasn’t, read the actual case transcript.
He was not within his rights to execute them after the threat was over.
There was never a threat, you really really need to read the court transcripts.
I probably have my copy at home but I’d have to dig.
If you do the case number and FOIA it from the court it was in you’ll get a copy, that’s how I got mine.
It depends on the State for specific legality.
Armed or not, an actual threat or not, an intruder into an occupied home leaves benefit of the doubt at the entry point they used to get in. It might have been intended as a burglary instead of a home invasion, but the perpetrator does not get to make that distinction.
There is a tangible difference between regular property crime like shoplifting, fraud, or theft outside of a dwelling and the violation of a home. And another tangible difference if that home is occupied.
Sure, this is adjudicated though there’s absolutely zero question to it at this point.
No one said they did.
Correct, the jury instructions are public and literally all of that is in it.
I’m not even quite sure what your point is.
The US is over-policed, while simultaneously being under-policed for certain demographics, by a street gang operating under the color of law. We have an overabundance of bad shoots by the cops executing people for nonviolent propert crimes that needs to be dealt with. This is a real issue.
There is also a tendency for some to conflate that with self defense of/in a home under the (generally correct) idea that no property crime deserves the death penalty, like McDonalds managed to conflate the coffee burned old lady with frivolous lawsuits. I am saying that once you break into a home it is no longer “property crime” but something else.