Add new comment

On the model penal code: Good stuff, straight out of a law school hornbook.  Notice that not every state follows the model penal code.  Alaska generally does, for example, while New Mexico does not.  In Alaska, you can kill for all of the model penal code reasons, and then you can kill to terminate any home (not commercial) burglary in progress.  The Alaska police can also kill for the same offenses but they have a defense if they shoot mistakenly (the kid with a cap gun scenario) while a private citizen does not have this defense.
I think that killing burglars is a little cold-blooded.  Most burglars are dumb meth heads looking for pills, checks, cash and collateral to trade for a fix.  They often do not have any intention of harming anyone beyond stealing some cough syrup.
The "Kill home invasion burglars on sight" rule is more harsh than Biblical law.
“If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.
Exodus 22: 2-3 (NIV).  The implication here (I think), is that you should only kill for a legitimate security risk, i.e. a model penal code reason, and not just because you see a harmless drunken hobo rummaging through your stuff.  The Biblical standard also makes the death sound somewhat accidental, (A fatal blow is struck), rather than intentional.  If you shoot someone with both barrels of your Mad Max gun, then death is a certain result, and not just an accident.
This is an important concept, the distinction between what your rights are, and what is morally right.  You should do what is right, but you may act within your rights.