[Roscoe]

Since you don't have any actual law in support of you bizarre contentions, let's return to your pseudo-statute: "A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like."

Were the slain officers committing murder, rape, robbery, arson, or burglary?

[Hajman]

Since you don't have any actual law in support of you bizarre contentions, let's return to your pseudo-statute: "A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like."

Were the slain officers committing murder, rape, robbery, arson, or burglary?

Very good. You managed to break yet another logical rule: the False Dilemma (giving a limited number of options where there's more options availiable). The commited illegal breaking and entering, which would be considered under 'and the like'. Nice try though.

-The Hajman-