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.
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.
You think my argument is not good fai to h because you’re incapable of drawing a line between excessive and reasonable force. If the law were to simply state that self defense is permissible in instances of home intrusion, how are the courts meant to differentiate? There was a case recently where someone literally woke up with a knife in their head, who managed to fight off their attacker, and send them fleeing from their property. The resident chased the intruder back to their car and proceeded to stab them to death. The courts ruled they went from being assaulted to bring the assailant and ended up guilty of murder. Do you disagree with this ruling? Do you think that any level of force is justified following an initial attack, even if that force does not end when an assailant backs off?
Is it then “open season” to capture and torture an intruder for months on end? How about a kid who loses their ball in your back yard then jumps the fence, bat in hand, to retrieve it? Still “open season”? How do we otherwise draw the lines between these examples and one where a knife is used in am act of desperation leading to the death of a violent intruder?
Do you really want laws to be formed primarily around individual feelings of threat?