[WildTurkey]

Just when I thought you were making progress... A burglar is already initiating force against the homeowner by being in his house without permission. The homeowner would have every right to kill the burglar. The burglar adding the offense of shooting the homeowner on top of his initial offense is no defense.

By definition, a burglar has initiated no force against the homeowner. Check your law.

It doesn't help your argument when you use "always". Too easy to find exceptions.

[Dead Corpse]

By definition, a burglar has initiated no force against the homeowner. Check your law.

I live in Texas. If you are on my property at night, not even necessarily in my house, uninvited... I am within my rights to shoot you. If you invade my property without my consent, you have initiated force against me. Period.

To say that a burglar can just come into your house and as long as he doesn't do you any violence physically, that you can't touch him. That sounds like British stupidity to me.

[Trailerpark Badass]

By definition, a burglar has initiated no force against the homeowner. Check your law.

Uh, wrong. Burglary is an entering done without authority of the property owner. It is presumed that, without such authority, the burglar is present against the implied wishes of the property owner. In other words, the burglar's presence is forced upon an unwilling property owner.

But I'm sure you knew that; you were just flinging crap.