And when the boy refused to leave when ordered to do so by the property owner, AND began a physical assault on the property owner he became an intruder / home invader subject to deadly force.
It’s really easy to defend positions when you’re inventing facts from whole cloth.
IF that is what happened, you might be right. HOWEVER, that's not what the article says. Your version does not even match up with what the father says. For example, barricaded in a room with the daughter is not a continuing physical assualt, so deadly force is NOT permissible (even with the castle doctrine, given the other facts). So far, you've brought up a complete straw man and are now making up your own facts. I think you know you were wrong in your original statement and just don't want to admit it. Pointless continuing the discussion...
“And when the boy refused to leave when ordered to do so by the property owner, AND began a physical assault on the property owner he became an intruder / home invader subject to deadly force.”
Dad and daughter have different versions. Her version says the boy begged for the dad to let him leave.
Are you actually defending this idiot who blindly fired a gun through a door with his daughter on the other side?
And when the boy refused to leave when ordered to do so by the property owner
___________
read the article Centurion. Especially the part that reads “Reed opened the door to find Guzman sitting with his back to the wall. Reed began beating Guzman in the face with the pool stick. Morgan said Guzman kept saying, “Stop, I’ll leave,” but her dad wouldn’t stop even though Guzman was bleeding, she told police.”