i'll repeat it one more time.
563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:
(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:
(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or
(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or
(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;
(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;
(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.
2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;
(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or
(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.
4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.
(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180, A.L. 2007 S.B. 62 & 41, A.L. 2010 H.B. 1692, et al. merged with H.B. 2081)
This is the whole passage from state law.
He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary
Don't get started on reasonably believes again. The shooter alone defines when he felt at such great risk that he had to resort to force, he has to testify as to why he felt that he was in risk of being killed, injured, or having a violent felony committed on either his person or a companion, as long as he is within the boundaries of his castle. It seems to be assumed that there are going to be huge numbers of people too
It is, as was clearly written into law, the prosecutions burden to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the shooter lied to police, and deliberately committed an illegal shooting, a deliberate homicide, and he is still innocent until proven guilty.
Are you an attorney who specializes in case law? This information is provided by the state, it is the law. time after time this law has been upheld.
Maybe you just want to argue, and don't care a whit for the clear and simple law of this state, it doesn't matter to me what you believe.
I have tried to pass factual information on. Instead of reading the laws that state absolutely the situation and circumstances, there have been, over and over, arguments that the law doesn't apply. There have even been statements implying that I'm ready and willing to violate those laws by shooting without full legal justification. There have even been bald faced insults, that my words weren't worth reading because I tried to avoid this very sort of criticism by posting in my signature.
Anyone who continues to play games saying that anyone can go to prison because he shot an attacker, whether there are legal protections in place or not, is doing a grave disservice to the whole of society.
Let them look it up themselves, and don't tell them what the facts are in their individual situation. Right now, over and over and over, the posts in this thread have put unsupported and incorrect information in the hands of every one of the six million people who live in my state.
Have you wondered why I haven't named this state? It's because I don't want someone going on line to look up this information, finding this thread, and believing what is being posted here. I'd prefer that he read the actual law.