And do you think the shooter should have to prove that they made every reasonable attempt to avoid a felony conviction? I’m not sure I can get behind that. It’s too subjective, IMO.
Yes, but I think that is fairly easy to do. For example, if you could not exit the house because, say, you were upstairs in your bedroom and it sounded like the bad guy was down stairs, it would be a reasonable action to avoid confrontation to lock your BR door and call the police at that point. If the bad guy broke into your locked bedroom, it would be reasonable to shoot him. It would be on record with the dispatcher and the door would be damaged.
Because, like G-Roll said, it's a given that one takes a great risk, penalty of prison or death, when breaking into homes.
That does not give license to home owners to shoot. I think the causal chain is backward. That homeowners might under certain circumstances shoot is what makes it risky.
It should be the State's duty to prove that the homicide wasn't justifiable.
That sounds suspiciously like stand your ground. It is also the mindset that causes many of the gun fails reported here. Look at all the people who shot a friend or relative because they thought it was an intruder. If they'd retreated instead of pulled the trigger, those accidents would be avoided.
Statistics are great, except when they're not. And when it involves you , you won't much care about what statistics show.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make or argue against. For the record, based on the rather ambiguous story, I would say Dunlap would have been justified in shooting January.
But, yes, occasionally terrible things happen. That is implicit in the statistics.