You know, I’m sure you would. So would I.
But we live in a society full of people stupid enough to vote for Clinton/Gore who might not be as wise as you and I when looking for that reason. We abdicate the responsibility of retaliatory use of force to police, and I think that it’s in all our best interest that we expect the person who goes beyond that, to end a life in order to protect his interests, to have to spend a precious second our two to “think up a reasonable reason not to shoot” before pulling the trigger.
tick bang bang tick. Time's up! You can shoot now.
Such situations commonly do not give a second or two.
Criminal perpetrators will not stop a couple of seconds, their minds are allready made up, there is no decision to be made. You can call it off right up until the hammer falls, but if you have reason to suspect a threat to your life, you'd better be ready.
A license to carry concealed, or even the possession of a firearm is not a 'license to kill', as many in the press would put it, but rather the enormous responsibility of protecting yourself and others without causing harm to the undeserving. Nothing will give as close a perspective on the responsibility police officers face daily as carrying a weapon in public as a civillian, where inappropriately producing the weapon can be considered assault with a deadly weapon.
With that in mind, most concealed weapons permit holders will be sure they have a situation in which deadly force is appropriate before the weapon is produced. You have to be aware of your surroundings to not be surprised.
IMHO, this guy was scared of someone and the kid happened to knock on the wrong door at the wrong time. It could be that he was overtired, neurotic, and shot out of aggravation or petulence, perhaps without intending to hit anyone. But then, this is for the court to decide. Otherwise, there remains a presumption of innocence in our court system, which many have forgotten here, and especially in the Press, who would take on the role of judge, jury, and executioner.