The problem with the law is that it seems to presume that in a potentially life-threatening situation a homeowner will have nerves of steel, exquisite judgement, and the skill of an experienced gunfighter.
None of these things are likely to be true.
It is a very bad result if you can be killed for knocking on someone's door after a car accident, for example. The shooting certainly should be investigated by the DA (whereas, if you shoot somebody after he breaks the door down, I think the DA should give you a medal and split the savings with you).
I'm not sure how to write the law to cover all possible contingencies that occur outside of your four walls. Endorsing "if the homeowner felt threatened, he was" sounds like "If she says it was rape, it was".
I think the standard for self defense needs to be much higher if the dead guy is on the other side of your locked door.
You are of course assuming the locked door will keep someone out. The article says he was afraid the door would fail.IMHO he had every right to defend his property and his life if he was in fear of losing it.
I basically agree.
If the door is broken open then the perp can be killed on the spot. Give the homeowner a medal.
I doubt a criminal would knock on the door long if it were their intention to break in. They’d simply break the door in. For most of us that wouldn’t likely take more than one try.