>Laws protecting homeowners who use lethal force to defend against home invasion are still irregular in the US. Often if the intruder turns out to be unarmed there is a problem or if the homeowner did not reasonably fear for their own life. In any case, in most of the US there is going to be an legal hassle.
>
>An armed home invader breaking into a house will probably serve less time than somebody dealing drugs to people who want drugs and is not using a weapon to do it.
>
>Stand your ground laws are another issue and generally concern defending oneself outside the the home. As anyone who knows anything about self-defense will tell you the first rule is flee or avoid conflict if you can. The second rule is if the first is not possilbe, strike first, and so decisively as to end the fight. No points for fighting fair or fair warning. Points for surviving. Once the dust settles you live by your judgement, which is an excellent reason to avoid those situations to begin with - which is generally remarkably easy to do.
>

While I agree with the point of avoiding conflict is often easy when alone, it gets more complicated if others around -
just female companion (even if only for wearing high heels) in the "outside" scenario or plus kids in the in house scenario.
Possible property damage in house is much greater as well - outside being mostly car and jewels.

So how could stand your ground - unhelpful as it is - come into being before fight for your home zone ?
Or does it encompass fight for home zone where it is in place ?

Seems a bit haphazard, but possibly due to selected reading materials making it overseas.

regards

thomas