Hmmm. The article indicates a broken window, and further ‘medical and forensic evidence’. If the broken window was the point of access, it might indicate that a lot of the cuts sustained by the alleged intruder could be traced to the broken glass. That fact would change the entire scenario. It then becomes ‘much ado about nothing’.
Would you then like to retract your statement that a b&e with a brandished weapon is “open season”? I definitely don’t take that as a nuanced take that is driving towards broader understanding.
Nope. If someone is inside my home and is an armed & immediate threat, I think I should be able to use whatever force necessary to protect myself and my family from that threat. If that person leaves my home, they’re no longer an immediate threat to me, are they? In the example you gave, the person that died was no longer an immediate threat.
In any case, it’s pretty clear that you aren’t interested in discussing nuance for the topic at hand, but rather “winning.” I’m done here.
Do you really want laws to be formed primarily around individual feelings of threat?
If that’s the basis of the law, if a child enters your home without permission and you feel threatened you are allowed to take any force necessary to no longer feel threatened. Using that definition you could stab an 8 year old to death and be in your legal rights.