Every single officer I know has told me the same thing. If someone breaks into your house and you are going to shoot, empty the clip into them. Their reasoning has to do with their experience in dealing with a legal system which has been perverted to protect criminals at the expense of their victims. The simple reason is "dead men tell no lies".

>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.
>
>
>
>>Hi Mike,
>>
>>>>>But a man with a gun breaking in to a house has little to fear from the state compared to what he is prepared to do to the homeowner - unless, of course, the homeowner inflicts his own justice - in which case the legal risk in now on the homeowner ( though the phrase is popular "It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by six")
>>>>
>>>>This is something I wonder about - how can there be legal risk to the homeowner defending against illegel break in
>>>>when OTOH things like the "stand your ground rule" seem to protect a selfappointed helper
>>>>shooting an unarmed, but differently coloured person who did nothing illegal.
>>>
>>>The Zimmerman case is still in the legal system. Whether he will be protected or incarcerated is an open question. IMO "stand your ground" laws are not even applicable. It has never been suggested that Trayvon Martin approached or threatened George Zimmerman. Zimmerman called the police, as he had done dozens of times before, to report suspicious activity. (IMO "young black male spotted"). The police told him to stay in his car, they would handle it. He followed Martin anyway and initiated the fatal encounter. I don't know how it will turn out in court but if Zimmerman's lawyers are going to use stand your ground as the defense they will be playing a losing hand.
>>
>>My "seem to protect" was a bit short. I realize that that particular case is not done yet,
>>but the possibility of the home owner having a clear case of defending himself might be in trouble
>>whereas such a rule is in existance is strange. Also Zimmerman was handled more harshly after
>>some press coverage had surfaced, giving rise to the idea that otherwise chances were for him to get off easier.
>>
>>If the home owner is in trouble because he installed deadly traps and activated those when leaving,
>>causing the death of the entering person when he himself was not in danger -
>>I personally think that should be tallied under evolution in action -
>>but is another case altogether, but I doubt if Charles meant that.
>>
>>>
>>>UPDATE: Injecting a little levity, there was a great cartoon in The New Yorker a few months ago. A guy is in a gun shop talking with another guy behind the counter, an array of scary looking guns mounted on the wall behind him. The guy behind the counter says, "How much ground do you need to stand?"
>>
>>Haven't seen it, but made me grin now
>>
>>regards
>>
>>thomas