So not only did they leave facts out, they completely made things up to make it sound better to the anti's.
If you take all of the names and possible motives out of this story you are left with a very simple situation. A man who was attempting to commit felony aggravated assault while trespassing was killed by his victim in self-defense.
Of these two stories, the latter explains the prosecutor's stance on the matter... he was precluded from prosecution because the burden of proof was entirely on him... the dead man walked to the house... what his intent was, we do not know... he's dead, after all.
In hundreds more cases; the law, as it exists, will be used in a much more clearly "just" manner...
That can be horribly abused and it doesn't apply to castle doctrine in the home.
Definitely not for home, or as they recently modified the law breaking into your property (you no longer have to wait for someone to break in the house).
The law states it is your Constitutional right to protect yourself, and as long as you show some common sense and don't go looking for a fight, or can safely disengage from using lethal force, you are legal. But within keeping yourself self safe, you must show some discretion. If the BG is 20 feet away with a knife you must warn him and can draw on him. If he approaches still and you do not see an out he's toast. But if he backs off your call 911 and report the incident.
Kalispell: Judge won't give wife restraining order against ex-lover who shot husbandNew Development:
Bottom line--judge says there is no evidence that the shooter is a danger against the wife and denies her request for Protective Order.
After reading the comments, I'd hate to have to face a jury in NY for any gun related event. And I found it interesting that the husbands father was quoted saying his son was 40 going on 25. That spoke volumes to me about his maturity level/ decision making capabilities. I imagine he had a history.