[ronnyquest]

"I sympathize with people who own large patches of land and trying to protect their property and livelyhood if they have farm crops."

But not just regular ol' property owners, huh?

How was the property owner to know if the man, who violated his fenced property, was not a threat? How was he to know if the trespasser was armed? A guy was casing the joint for a later burglary (or worse) in a neighborhood that has seen a recent surge in such activity and he is charged with a misdemeanor, yet the property owner who defended his property, without using lethal force, is facing a felony? A felony? Really?

[yarddog]

I bet Iowa is not a “True Man” or “Castle Doctrine” state.

It is hard to believe but many, maybe most states require you to retreat from thugs rather than confront them. Until fairly recently Florida was such a state.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

” the property owner who defended his property, without using lethal force, is facing a felony?”

And the loss of his rights to own a gun.

[nerdwithagun]

No, no, no. There was an “and” between people with large pieces of land and people who grow crops. I sympathize with anybody who has trespassers, large property owners are the ones more likely to have them.

In this specific case, NO the property owner should not be charged with a felony and probably not for any crime at all and the prosecutors involved are going to anwer to God. However I can't completely agree with his actions either.