There are a lot of people in this country who believe crimes like robbery and burglary do not carry the death penalty...
The fact is that regardless of what people believe, robbery and burglary, in and of themselves, do not carry the death penalty. It is true that in some circumstances it may be legal to use deadly force in self-defense against a robber or burglar, but that's not because the law states that people should be killed for those crimes.
It's important to understand that the right to use self-defense is not granted so that citizens can punish criminals or enforce the law, it is granted so that in extreme circumstances, citizens can take extreme action to protect themselves when no other recourse is available.
...they would love to end the right of self-defense, even in the home.
While there are some people who don't believe that people should have the right to use weapons in self-defense, that is not a common belief, and it is not one that anyone on this thread has espoused.
You are confusing two things. The fact that someone tells you that a particular strategy is not wise does NOT mean that they are telling you that they're anti-self-defense.
For example, let's say my friend has a huge tree on his property that's between his house and the neighbor's house. He tells me that doesn't want it there anymore. He tells me that he's just going to go to Home Depot, buy a chainsaw and start cutting. Knowing his experience level with such things and the pitfalls involved, I advise him that it would be unwise for him to cut it down himself because he could ruin his house or his neighbor's house and that he might injure or kill himself or someone else.
I'm not telling him that I'm against cutting down trees. I'm not telling him that he has to keep the tree forever. I'm not telling him that the tree shouldn't be removed.
I'm only trying to warn him that what he's doing is dangerous and he would be well advised to get a professional to help him accomplish the task safely.
In the same way, pointing out that armed confrontations can be dangerous isn't saying that armed confrontations should be illegal, should never happen, that self-defense isn't (or shouldn't be) legal. It's just warning people that armed confrontations don't always favor the good guy and that even when the good guy "wins" there may still be tremendously negative consequences.
Given a dead burglar in the kitchen, there is no disputing your claim.
You need to do some research on forensics if you honestly believe that there won't be any evidence to dispute a false claim if your opponent dies.
Furthermore, this kind of reasoning is bordering on advocating criminal behavior which is against TFL rules and is inconsistent with the principles of responsible firearms ownership. The idea that criminals should be killed (permanently silenced) in the interest of bettering one's legal situation after a deadly force encounter is NOT consistent with the legal/justifiable use of deadly force.
A reasonable citizen gets to defend himself, if he goes out to his driveway to confront the car thief, and the thief is aggressive, the outcome is due to the actions of the thief.
It is very likely legal to do such a thing in some locales. In others, it may be necessary to retreat from the confrontation if it turns violent, resorting to deadly force only if retreat is not possible.
However, even if it is legal, that doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do. Any trainer you ask will tell you that the best gunfight isn't the one you win, it's the one you avoid in the first place.
An unreasonable citizen doesn't get to go out into his driveway and shoot the car thief who puts his hands up.
And a wise one doesn't go out at all if there's a good chance of having to shoot someone. Having to shoot someone means that you were in deadly danger and given the choice between safety and deadly danger when there's nothing but property involved should be a no-brainer.
