As is typical, the story they tell is dramatic, but questionable. The victim brandishes a weapon, the burglar runs off, AND THE GUY CHASES THE BURGLAR OUTSIDE HIS HOUSE, holding him at gunpoint after the thief stumbles and falls.
Use of a firearm like this is illegal in many states. Many states have an “imminent fear” clause governing when use of a firearm is legal. In my state, you can't use a gun on a burglar if he runs away. If the guy had plugged him in the bedroom, that would be OK, but as soon as the burglar ceased to be an immediate threat, the home owner can't even brandish his weapon.
Just resending this fragment to those involved in a similar discussion a few days ago. Thanks for your factoid statement here.
However, the original article here does not indicate if the burglar was armed or not, as to the implementation of gun defense.
But in my case, it would not be likely if I was faced with such a situation, that the burglar would be leaving my quarters under his own power.
I would not be asking myself as the homeowner did in this title article:
"Is that self-defense or is that me just trying to let off a little bit of steam at that point? That changes the whole dynamic of everything."
What a dumb question. "Shoot, or shoot not. There is no maybe." (in this scenario)(after Yoda)