Homeowner caught on tape "finishing off" teen burglars. Murder or self defense?

[TorchTheWitch]

70. the law defines self-defense as the use of force

that is only enough to stop an attack. Castle doctrine allows lethal force when necessary when your home has been invaded. Anything he did following the use of force to render the intruders unable to attack is not legitimate self-defense. One can reasonably "finish off" an intruder ONLY if they are still presenting a danger. For example, say your home is invaded, and you shoot the invader in an arm or other place that doesn't render them unable to attack you, they come after you, so you shoot them again this time killing them.

There has to be a reasonable fear of harm either to yourself or to someone else in the house. Someone invading one's home by itself presents a reasonable fear of harm, but one can only use force to stop an attack or other felony such as theft, vandalism, etc.

Prosecutors are claiming that because he lay in wait for the intruders he didn't have a reasonable fear of harm or the intruders conducting another felony in his home. I think that's ridiculous. If one has reason to believe that their home is going to be invaded (and he did as it had happened before apparently more than once, and obviously it DID happen again), lying in wait in one's own home to protect yourself, anyone else in the home and from other felonies occurring by intruders into your home is absolutely reasonable... if you have good reason to suspect your home is going to be invaded, it is more than reasonable to lie in wait in order to attempt to prevent harm to yourself, someone else in the home or intruders conducting other felonies in your home.

What makes this guy a murderer is not what he did before the invasion of his home but what he did after he subdued the invaders. He had every right to be angry, lie in wait, and shoot the intruders, but ONLY to the point where they were subdued. Once subdued he also has the obligation to contact law enforcement as soon as possible so the intruders can be arrested and medical aid rendered.

This really is a case of premeditation to murder not because he lay in wait - which he had every right to do - but because premeditation does not require a lot of time, but can be as little as a few seconds. The amount of time in which it becomes premeditation is what a reasonable person would believe was enough time to realize that further force against the intruders was not justifiable. Clearly, what he said to police and what was recorded it was not justifiable for him to have continued to use force against the intruders after they were subdued, and clearly show that later use of force was because of anger, not fear.