Since this is the law section I'll ask this:
Is it justifiable to shoot someone simply for the fear of losing possessions, or does the threat of imminent danger to one self have to also be present?
I guess there's no way to prove/disprove if the home owner truly feared for his life, but even if he didn't and said so, would it still be a justifiable shoot?
The last line of the story leads me to believe that simply defending one's property is cause enough to shoot.
Is it justifiable to shoot someone simply for the fear of losing possessions, or does the threat of imminent danger to one self have to also be present?
I guess there's no way to prove/disprove if the home owner truly feared for his life, but even if he didn't and said so, would it still be a justifiable shoot?
The last line of the story leads me to believe that simply defending one's property is cause enough to shoot.