Personal fears personified

[Roswell]

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Seriously?

 

Are you that ignorant?

 

Breaking into someones home is posing a threat.

 

How the shit can you argue that breaking and entering isnt a threat???

 

Do you think people break in to home to tidy up? They arent their to rob or harm the homeowner. they are just there to dust the blinds and do some sweeping?

 

At this point you are just making yourself look like an idiot.

 

 

The law literally states you can only use deadly force against an intruder if they pose a threat. So as per your state's law, being an intruder doesn't automatically make them pose a threat worthy of deadly force. 

[IkeaGnome]

9 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Seriously?

 

Are you that ignorant?

 

Breaking into someones home is posing a threat.

 

How the shit can you argue that breaking and entering isnt a threat???

 

Do you think people break in to home to tidy up? They arent their to rob or harm the homeowner. they are just there to dust the blinds and do some sweeping?

 

At this point you are just making yourself look like an idiot.

 

 

Hopefully this wont come across wrong. We've got a good back and forth debate going here on a controversial topic. Would you mind not calling people ignorant just because of a difference in views? I just don't want to give mods any reason to close this, you know? 

[RonnieOP]

Just now, Vitamanic said:

The law literally states you can only use deadly force against an intruder if they pose a threat. So as per your state's law, being an intruder doesn't automatically make them pose a threat worthy of deadly force. 

" He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another. "

 

When someone intrudes on my home I can reasonably believe that they are there to harm me. Case closed.

 

"reasonably believe" that is what saves the homeowner. its what has saved many homeowners in my state. You think the DA is going to spend thousands of dollars and hours to try and convince a jury that a homeowner did not "reasonably believe" that and intruder was not going to harm them? Do you think a jury is going to say "that homeowner shouldve believed that the intruder was there to give him some cookies and milk".

 

No. theres literally no legal reason to enter a strangers home uninvited.

 

I get "stand your ground" is a new concept to you. Dont act like you knew of it before because your first comment was talking about how legally you had to retreat. The fact that you thought that we had to retreat shows you didnt know the law.

 

again you have provided nothing that proves me otherwise. 

 

 

[Roswell]

11 minutes ago, Voluspa said:

Notice that one says burglary, not robbery. Property defense is worded differently. That's why I linked the statute to you.

Sure, but you're still wrong. Again, this is the criteria that needs to be met to justify killing someone in self-defense, you're off on some tangent about when you have a duty to flee, which has no bearing on when it's ok to shoot someone in your home:

 

Force in Defense of Self.

 

(a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, a person who is justified in using nondeadly force in self-defense under AS 11.81.330 may use deadly force in self-defense upon another person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self-defense against

 

 

(1) death;

 

 

(2) serious physical injury;

 

 

(3) kidnapping, except for what is described as custodial interference in the first degree in AS 11.41.320;

 

 

(4) sexual assault in the first degree;

 

 

(5) sexual assault in the second degree;

 

 

(6) sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree; or

 

 

(6) robbery in any degree.    

[RonnieOP]

6 minutes ago, Voluspa said:

Hopefully this wont come across wrong. We've got a good back and forth debate going here on a controversial topic. Would you mind not calling people ignorant just because of a difference in views? I just don't want to give mods any reason to close this, you know? 

Calling someone ignorant on the laws of other states isnt an insult. They have clearly shown form the very first response of "having to retreat" that they are ignorant of the laws in areas.

 

I am ignorant or the laws in a lot of places. Hence why im not commenting on the laws in your state.  I wouldnt take that as an insult. It is the truth.

[TempestCatto]

27 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

ive personally been told by police after an incident that I couldve/shouldved killed them

Correct. In a self defense situation, you're taught to aim at center of mass (chest or back area) and shoot to kill. Otherwise the bad guy can, and will, sue you. They often win (somehow).

[IkeaGnome]

Just now, Vitamanic said:

Sure, but you're still wrong. Again, this is the criteria that needs to be met to justify killing someone in self-defense, you're off on some tangent about when you have a duty to flee, which has no bearing on when it's ok to shoot someone in your home:

 

Force in Defense of Self.

 

(a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, a person who is justified in using nondeadly force in self-defense under AS 11.81.330 may use deadly force in self-defense upon another person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self-defense against

 

 

(1) death;

 

 

(2) serious physical injury;

 

 

(3) kidnapping, except for what is described as custodial interference in the first degree in AS 11.41.320;

 

 

(4) sexual assault in the first degree;

 

 

(5) sexual assault in the second degree;

 

 

(6) sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree; or

 

 

(6) robbery in any degree.    

Spoiler

Sec. 11.81.350. Justification: Use of force in defense of property and premises.
 (a) A person may use nondeadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by the other of an unlawful taking or damaging of property or services.

 (b) A person may use deadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of arson upon a dwelling or occupied building.

 (c) A person in possession or control of any premises, or a guest or an express or implied agent of that person, may use
     (1) nondeadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by the other of criminal trespass in any degree upon the premises;

     (2) deadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be a burglary in any degree occurring in an occupied dwelling or building.

 (d) [Repealed, § 7 ch 68 SLA 2006.]
 (e) A person
     (1) in a vehicle, or forcibly removed from a vehicle, may use deadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be a carjacking of that vehicle at or about the time the vehicle is carjacked;

     (2) outside of a vehicle may use deadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the theft of that vehicle when another person, other than the perceived offender, is inside of the vehicle; this paragraph does not apply to a person outside of a vehicle who is involved in a dispute with a person inside of the vehicle who is a household member of that person; in this paragraph, “household member” has the meaning given in AS 18.66.990.

 (f) A person justified in using force under this section does not have a duty to leave or attempt to leave the area of the encounter before using force.

 (g) In (e) of this section,
     (1) “carjacking” means a robbery involving the taking or attempted taking of a vehicle from a person in possession of the vehicle;

     (2) “vehicle” means a “motor vehicle” as defined in AS 28.90.990, an aircraft, or a watercraft.

81.350 is on about property. Paragraph C, sub section 2, and paragraph F. Our stand your ground laws are for people and property. Burglary included.

Spoiler

Sec. 11.46.310. Burglary in the second degree.
 (a) A person commits the crime of burglary in the second degree if the person enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime in the building.

 (b) Burglary in the second degree is a class C felony.

If you want to get into semantics about that, someone breaks in, "Leave. You're trespassing. If you don't leave, you will be shot."

[Roswell]

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

" He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another. "

 

When someone intrudes on my home I can reasonably believe that they are there to harm me. Case closed.

That's not how it works. You'll need to prove that you were reasonably convinced that you were in grave danger if you kill them. No case closed.

 

Imagine a daughter sneaking in a boyfriend, unrecognized neighbor worried about an open door, cops doing a wellness check, gas company replying to a gas leak call, the list goes on. You start blasting these people, you're gonna go to prison.

[TempestCatto]

1 minute ago, Vitamanic said:

That's not how it works. You'll need to prove that you were reasonably convinced that you were in grave danger if you kill them. No case closed.

Easy to do if they're a repeat offender with warrants on them. Also if they have prying tools like a crow bar, a big duffel bag for stolen goods, etc.

 

1 minute ago, Vitamanic said:

Imagine a daughter sneaking in a boyfriend, unrecognized neighbor worried about an open door, cops doing a wellness check, gas company replying to a gas leak call, the list goes on. You start blasting these people, you're gonna go to prison.

You seem to be misunderstanding us all here. We are able to read the situation at hand being observant as to what the person is doing, how they are dressed, what they have, where their car may or may not be, if someone is with them, their demeanor, etc. When we say that we fear for our safety, we are glancing over the fact that we have already assessed the situation. We are not instantly shooting anyone that comes to our front door. 

[RonnieOP]

Just now, Vitamanic said:

That's not how it works. You'll need to prove that you were reasonably convinced that you were in grave danger if you kill them. No case closed.

 

Imagine a daughter sneaking in a boyfriend, unrecognized neighbor worried about an open door, cops doing a wellness check, gas company replying to a gas leak call, the list goes on. You start blasting these people, you're gonna go to prison.

Yes....because the gas company showing up to your door is not a perceived threat.

 

Now you are just bringing up nonsense.

 

I specifically said a stranger entering your home. and you bring up cops and the gas company. Well the gas man isnt going to be breaking in to my home. so its asinine to even use that logic.  And a cop showing up at your home would not be a threat. For one when cops do a wellness check...they knock on the door and announce themselves. theres no perceived threat there at all.

 

BUT a stranger breaking in to my home is easily a case of a perceived threat. I can easily say that i had reason to believe that a stranger who enters my home (which is already a criminal act) would harm me.

 

Your arguing that noone could reasonably believe that they were in any harm when someone break in to their home. I have no clue how anyone has that sort of logic.

 

[Roswell]

3 minutes ago, Voluspa said:

  Reveal hidden contents

Sec. 11.81.350. Justification: Use of force in defense of property and premises.
 (a) A person may use nondeadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by the other of an unlawful taking or damaging of property or services.

 (b) A person may use deadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of arson upon a dwelling or occupied building.

 (c) A person in possession or control of any premises, or a guest or an express or implied agent of that person, may use
     (1) nondeadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by the other of criminal trespass in any degree upon the premises;

     (2) deadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be a burglary in any degree occurring in an occupied dwelling or building.

 (d) [Repealed, § 7 ch 68 SLA 2006.]
 (e) A person
     (1) in a vehicle, or forcibly removed from a vehicle, may use deadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be a carjacking of that vehicle at or about the time the vehicle is carjacked;

     (2) outside of a vehicle may use deadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the theft of that vehicle when another person, other than the perceived offender, is inside of the vehicle; this paragraph does not apply to a person outside of a vehicle who is involved in a dispute with a person inside of the vehicle who is a household member of that person; in this paragraph, “household member” has the meaning given in AS 18.66.990.

 (f) A person justified in using force under this section does not have a duty to leave or attempt to leave the area of the encounter before using force.

 (g) In (e) of this section,
     (1) “carjacking” means a robbery involving the taking or attempted taking of a vehicle from a person in possession of the vehicle;

     (2) “vehicle” means a “motor vehicle” as defined in AS 28.90.990, an aircraft, or a watercraft.

81.350 is on about property. Paragraph C, sub section 2, and paragraph F. Our stand your ground laws are for people and property. Burglary included.

  Reveal hidden contents

Sec. 11.46.310. Burglary in the second degree.
 (a) A person commits the crime of burglary in the second degree if the person enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime in the building.

 (b) Burglary in the second degree is a class C felony.

If you want to get into semantics about that, someone breaks in, "Leave. You're trespassing. If you don't leave, you will be shot."

Yup... You need to prove that they intended to rob you. The goalposts are so far removed from the original arguments the two of you were making that this is pointless now.

 

You both argued that you could indiscriminately kill strangers in your house no matter what. It's obvious at this point that those statements were false. I'm kind of tired of following the logical fallacies at this point.

[Trik'Stari]

IIRC @LinusTech is known for being willing to take a selfie with random fans.

 

For gods sake, the man went to an auction to purchase his original gold play button and instead let some kid that had earned one but not received one, have it anyways when that kid won the bid.

[RonnieOP]

Just now, TempestCatto said:

Easy to do if they're a repeat offender with warrants on them. Also if they have prying tools like a crow bar, a big duffel bag for stolen goods, etc.

 

You seem to be misunderstanding us all here. We are able to read the situation at hand being observant as to what the person is doing, how they are dressed, what they have, where their car may or may not be, if someone is with them, their demeanor, etc. When we say that we fear for our safety, we are glancing over the fact that we have already assessed the situation. We are not instantly shooting anyone that comes to our front door. 

Thank you.

 

My landlord knocking on my door is not reason to believe im in harm.

 

Someone ive never met before breaking in to my home does give me reason to believe im in harm.  Hence why I can lawfuly defend myself.

 

Theres a reason that activists are trying to shut down "stand your ground" laws and refer to them as "shoot first"

[RonnieOP]

5 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

Yup... You need to prove that they intended to rob you. The goalposts are so far removed from the original arguments the two of you were making that this is pointless now.

 

You both argued that you could indiscriminately kill strangers in your house no matter what. It's obvious at this point that those statements were false. I'm kind of tired of following the logical fallacies at this point.

In my state you just have to prove you had reason to believe you were in harm.

 

Again ill ask you. Why in the world would anyone break in to a strangers home if they didnt have harmful intent?

 

In what world would it make any sense to think its ok to break into someones home?

 

Even in your example of the old lady doing a wellness check....who enterrs a strangers home at 3 am because a doors open? Nobody. if they are worried they call the cops to do a wellness check.

[Roswell]

9 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

You seem to be misunderstanding us all here. We are able to read the situation at hand being observant as to what the person is doing, how they are dressed, what they have, where their car may or may not be, if someone is with them, their demeanor, etc. When we say that we fear for our safety, we are glancing over the fact that we have already assessed the situation. We are not instantly shooting anyone that comes to our front door. 

No, that's not what he's saying at all. Here's a gem from earlier in the thread:

 

I go down there gun in hand and i see a figure in the dark and i dont know them or their intent. I can legally shoot and kill them. Because legally i can assume an intruder is up to no good. I do not have to assume that its my neighbor checking up on me. That is what "stand your ground" or "shoot first" laws are.

 

He's been moving goalposts over the entire thread. It's obvious that the links to local law contradict these statements, but it's the internet and on the internet nobody can ever accept being wrong.

[RonnieOP]

Just now, Vitamanic said:

No, that's not what he's saying at all. Here's a gem from earlier in the thread:

 

 

 

 

He's been moving goalposts over the entire thread. It's obvious that the links to local law contradict these statements, but it's the internet and on the internet nobody can ever accept being wrong.

If a stranger is in my home at 3 am and i kill them i would not be arrested. you know why? Because its reasonable for me to believe i am in harm. The law says I have to reasonable believe i am in danger. Do you not think that someone breaking in to your home would make you think you are in danger?

 

Why will you not answer the question of why in the world would anyone break in to another home if not for ill intent? Its a simple question.

 

Ill answer it for you (since you wont). theres none. theres literally not one reason why any sane person would think that its ok to break in to someone elses home. Even your example of the old woman doing a wellness check is asinine. No old woman is going in to a stranger home at 3 am to check on them. No sane person is going to think that the person in their home at 3 am is the elderly neighbor checking up on them.

[Roswell]

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

If a stranger is in my home at 3 am and i kill them i would not be arrested. you know why? Because its reasonable for me to believe i am in harm. The law says I have to reasonable believe i am in danger. Do you not think that someone breaking in to your home would make you think you are in danger?

 

Why will you not answer the question of why in the world would anyone break in to another home if not for ill intent? Its a simple question.

 

Ill answer it for you (since you wont). theres none. theres literally not one reason why any sane person would think that its ok to break in to someone elses home. Even your example of the old woman doing a wellness check is asinine. No old woman is going in to a stranger home at 3 am to check on them. No sane person is going to think that the person in their home at 3 am is the elderly neighbor checking up on them.

Oh my God, how hard is this to understand? Someone being in your home doesn't automatically mean they're there to cause great bodily harm or death. They may want to steal your stuff, they may be mentally disabled, they may be drunk. You can't just shoot someone that isn't posing an immediate threat. You even quoted your own law:

 

North Carolina Stand Your Ground law ( N.C.G.S. §14‑51.3) currently reads, in part, as follows:

[A] person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:

a) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.

b) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14‑51.2, generally that you are in your home, workplace or car and are in fear for yours or another's life

 

 

[IkeaGnome]

25 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

Yup... You need to prove that they intended to rob you. The goalposts are so far removed from the original arguments the two of you were making that this is pointless now.

 

You both argued that you could indiscriminately kill strangers in your house no matter what. It's obvious at this point that those statements were false. I'm kind of tired of following the logical fallacies at this point.

http://courts.alaska.gov/rules/crimins.htm#3i

 

If you look at 11.81.305b, which is how the jury is informed, it's actually on the prosecution to prove without a doubt that you acted in self defense. If you click it, it'll download a Word doc.

Spoiler

A defendant in possession or control of any premises, or an express or implied agent of that person, may use deadly force upon another person when and to the extent the defendant believes it is necessary to terminate what the defendant believes to be the commission or attempted commission by the other person of burglary in any degree occurring in an occupied dwelling or occupied building. The defendant’s belief must be reasonable under the circumstances. 

Unless the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in defense of premises as described above, you shall find the defendant not guilty.

At the end of the day, if someone breaks into my property, they will be shot. I'll deal with the jury after. People who are there for good intentions will knock and announce their presence. 

Also, in case you don't want to pull it up, here is the Ha v. State, 892 that is referenced in the jury instructions for 11.81.350.

Spoiler

 

The definition of "force" in AS 11.81.900(b) includes actual bodily impact, restraint, or confinement, as well as the threat of imminent bodily impact, restraint, or confinement.  Thus, self-defense may apply where a defendant reasonably perceived a threat of harm, so long as the perceived harm was imminent. Ha v. State, 892 P.2d 184, 194 (Alaska App. 1995).

 

[Roswell]

6 minutes ago, Voluspa said:

http://courts.alaska.gov/rules/crimins.htm#3i

 

If you look at 11.81.305b, which is how the jury is informed, it's actually on the prosecution to prove without a doubt that you acted in self defense. If you click it, it'll download a Word doc.

  Reveal hidden contents

A defendant in possession or control of any premises, or an express or implied agent of that person, may use deadly force upon another person when and to the extent the defendant believes it is necessary to terminate what the defendant believes to be the commission or attempted commission by the other person of burglary in any degree occurring in an occupied dwelling or occupied building. The defendant’s belief must be reasonable under the circumstances. 

Unless the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in defense of premises as described above, you shall find the defendant not guilty.

At the end of the day, if someone breaks into my property, they will be shot. I'll deal with the jury after. People who are there for good intentions will knock and announce their presence. 

Also, in case you don't want to pull it up, here is the Ha v. State, 892 that is referenced in the jury instructions for 11.81.350.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The definition of "force" in AS 11.81.900(b) includes actual bodily impact, restraint, or confinement, as well as the threat of imminent bodily impact, restraint, or confinement.  Thus, self-defense may apply where a defendant reasonably perceived a threat of harm, so long as the perceived harm was imminent. Ha v. State, 892 P.2d 184, 194 (Alaska App. 1995).

 

Prosecution would be proving that you didn't act in self-defense, they're not there to help you.

 

At this point you've given up trying to support your original incorrect statements and are now saying that you'll do it anyway and deal with consequences. Cool, but you were still incorrect.

[RonnieOP]

1 minute ago, Vitamanic said:

Oh my God, how hard is this to understand? Someone being in your home doesn't automatically mean they're there to cause great bodily harm or death. They may want to steal your stuff, they may be mentally disabled, they may be drunk. You can't just shoot someone that isn't posing an immediate threat. You even quoted your own law:

 

North Carolina Stand Your Ground law ( N.C.G.S. §14‑51.3) currently reads, in part, as follows:

[A] person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:

a) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.

b) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14‑51.2, generally that you are in your home, workplace or car and are in fear for yours or another's life

 

 

What you just put in bold proves my point.

 

If a stranger breaks in to my home theres no denying that i could have reason to believe that i am in harm. Thats the point of the law.

 

If someone is breaking in to my home and robbing me then they are already committing multiple felonies. Am i to believe that they are willing to commit multiple felonies but they arent willing to harm me if confronted? Of course not. thats asinine.

 

"reason to believe" someone breaking in to my home is enough for me to "reasonable believe" that i could be in harm.

 

Just because for some asinine reason you think "they are just robbing me they would never hurt me" doesnt mean anyone else thinks that. No DA and no jury is going to agree that I had no reason to fear for my safety.

 

Intent to Commit a Crime

For burglary and felonious breaking and entering, the defendant must enter with the intent to commit a felony or theft. However, the prosecutor is not required to establish exactly what was going through the defendant’s head. Indeed, the jury can often infer from the fact that a defendant has broken into and entered a building or vehicle without permission that defendant intended to commit a crime. The crime of burglary occurs as soon as the defendant enters into the building or vehicle with the illicit intent, even if the intended felony or theft never occurs.

 

Again. someone breaking into my home is enough for me to reasonably believe that I am in harm. and i have a right to lawfully do what i feel best.

 

 

[TempestCatto]

24 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

No, that's not what he's saying at all. Here's a gem from earlier in the thread:

 

 

 

 

He's been moving goalposts over the entire thread. It's obvious that the links to local law contradict these statements, but it's the internet and on the internet nobody can ever accept being wrong.

He summed it up pretty well, I'll just repost what he said:

20 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

If a stranger is in my home at 3 am and i kill them i would not be arrested. you know why? Because its reasonable for me to believe i am in harm. The law says I have to reasonable believe i am in danger. Do you not think that someone breaking in to your home would make you think you are in danger?

 

Why will you not answer the question of why in the world would anyone break in to another home if not for ill intent? Its a simple question.

 

Ill answer it for you (since you wont). theres none. theres literally not one reason why any sane person would think that its ok to break in to someone elses home. Even your example of the old woman doing a wellness check is asinine. No old woman is going in to a stranger home at 3 am to check on them. No sane person is going to think that the person in their home at 3 am is the elderly neighbor checking up on them.

 

 

As has been said dozens of times now, no one with good intent will be inside your home at 3am unannounced. They will knock, ring the door bell, call you, etc. This is not a hard concept to understand, please stop commenting if you cannot comprehend anything said upto this point.

 

Good day.

[PlayStation 2]

This thread went from famous enough celebrities not liking public attention in private life to demolishing someone who doesn't understand the concept of self-defense and the implication of state laws being different.

Eh, couldn't expect less from this forum.

[RonnieOP]

4 minutes ago, handymanshandle said:

This thread went from famous enough celebrities not liking public attention in private life to demolishing someone who doesn't understand the concept of self-defense and the implication of state laws being different.

Eh, couldn't expect less from this forum.

Eh a little healthy debate never really hurt anyone. Well atleast it shouldnt lol. You learn alot from debates with people with different views. 

 

I married an irish new yorker....so im used to alot of "debates" lol

[Drak3]

6 minutes ago, handymanshandle said:

Eh, couldn't expect less from this forum.

I expected more.

[IkeaGnome]

56 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

Yup... You need to prove that they intended to rob you. The goalposts are so far removed from the original arguments the two of you were making that this is pointless now.

 

You both argued that you could indiscriminately kill strangers in your house no matter what. It's obvious at this point that those statements were false. I'm kind of tired of following the logical fallacies at this point.

No, I said it's on the prosecution to prove without a doubt that you didn't act in self defense, not that the prosecution would be arguing for me. I also never said I would shoot anyone just for being on my property. Even the grandma doing a welfare check at 3 am would knock before they entered. I've been assuming the flags are there for ill intent(not knocking, breaking a window or lock, forcing their way in and not saying who they are). On the contrary to you thinking I would kill strangers no matter what, I've had strangers stay at my house after a vehicle broke. I live near the end of a very popular moose hunting trail and people break down there all the time. I've got a large shop that I don't use all of most of the time. With a CB and a HAM in the house, I usually hear when someone breaks something and can't get to town. It's not hard to go out in my rig and tow them back to where they can either fix it or get a tow truck. If it's after about 2000 or so, they won't get a tow truck out that far. I've met some pretty cool people that way. Between a spare bedroom, couch and air mattress I can usually get their whole hunting party into the house and between what I've got and what they've got, we usually end up with a really good dinner for cheap and a night of boozing. The state I live in is a very small community. We don't get much outside support so it's on us as a community to help each other. There's whole Facebook groups for SAR that isn't government based. You get bad weather and they can't go in to get you out, but even in the summer here being stuck is very dangerous. 

I'm not going away from my original point. People on my property with ill intentions will make them known. They will also be removed from the property one way or another. Another part to think about, as an EMT, I can't legally leave someone injured. If I shoot them to remove the threat, I then have to try to save their life until someone with higher training gets there. That's not how I want to spend a Friday night. Shooting someone is a last resort, but will be resorted to if need be. I understand that through all of this I have given very little context behind what I've said. 
People that are on your property and are there for good intentions/need help with knock. Most of the time, when you open the door they will even try to shake hands and introduce themselves. Robbers wont. 

On another side note, my neighbor is a nighttime photographer. When I bought my house, she came over and introduced herself, shook my hand and explained what she does for a living. She asked if it was okay to be on my property at night taking photos. She has my permission. She doesn't always tell me when she's coming onto my property to do so, and that's fine. It's obvious that it's her. Giant camera, tripod, flashing lights etc. She won't ever be shot on my property.