It sounds to me like the guy killed WAS in the process of burglarizing the garage. What will trip up the shooter in his trial is that he deliberately set a trap for the burglar. You're not allowed to kill burglars just because they're taking your stuff (Although you not only should be allowed, but given a bounty for it. This is one time I'd actually want to be on the jury.)
/johnny
not being able to redistribute the wealth at will without consequence makes democrats very sad.
that’s why they oppose ‘Castle Doctrine’. It thins the herd of their constituents.
But a cop can shoot and kill a burglar with no repercussions.
I'm not sure what you mean by that statement? Burglary is an unauthorized entry into a dwelling for the purpose of committing an offense and I do not believe you have to ascertain whether the burglar is armed before you shoot. This fellow had been burglared in the past. Cops set up decoy situations all the time. The only difference is that this is a ‘dwelling,’ which means absolutely stay the hell out unless you first obtain permission to come inside. Admittedly, the decoy aspect in this situation is unique, but I do not believe it should change the castle defense rule.
seems like this is another prosecutor over reach case. The prosecutors want to “send a message” AGAINST individualism.
IF this was indeed a trespass and this person was trespassing in the garage, there is no duty to retreat for the home resident. (home is castle)
Prosecutors who bring frivolous anti-self defense make example cases should be disbarred.
This is why it's important to know your state laws. When I lived in Maryland, I could use deadly force to stop a burglary. Defense of property is considered a legitimate reason for a shooting.
I moved across the river to Virginia, and in spite of the fact that VA has much more reasonable firearms and CCW laws, defense of property is not an exonerating excuse in a shooting. Here it must be the reasonable fear of death or grievous physical harm.