Aguila, you have misunderstood something.
But, as Spats McGee pointed out, this was a contractual arrangement between the perp and bond company, it wasn't a law enforcement action. And, as Mr. McGee further points out, the homeowner was not party to the contractual agreement.
The bondsmen, if they were following the law, properly and within limitations, were protected. They were performing a legal action of collecting a fugitive who was supposedly living in that place, and let's be serious, isn't it probable that 99% of people are going to LIE and deny entry when someone knocks and demands entry to remove a person?
[defensive force is not justified against an aggressor if] The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;
At this point, with this information, with the clear warning regarding people acting within the law,
using deadly force against the bondsmen is clearly not legal.
As I said, the bondsmen were clearly identified to a nearly absolute certainty. They would have provided identification to
twoseparate teams of police officers and would have been (ostensibly) acting under protection of the law.
If a person shot one or more of those bondsmen, they would have to be assumed (clearly) guilty of use of illegal deadly force since the bondsmen were performing a completely legal service. After a long, drawn out confrontation that included two sets of police officers accepting the legality of their actions, there should have been no doubt that they were bondsmen.
If the homeowner had fired on those bondsmen and he had no reasonable proof that he was justified, the only thing that can be believed is that he deliberately shot in an illegal and unjustified manner.
A lot of the comments seem to suggest that the law isn't important, that a homeowner has the right to shoot no matter what the circumstances are. Not true. The laws clearly indicate that making legal entry into the home by a bondsmen is not an illegal violent attack on the person or property is not an excuse to shoot. Just wanting to shoot the guy who broke into your house does not mean that that you can.
There is one more consideration. The laws always refer to 'reasonable belief' of imminent harm.
The homeowner would have been absolutely unable to support an claim of 'reasonable belief' without some very, very solid proof that his life, safety, property were under immediate threat of very serious injury.