Yeah that's fair, I was interpreting "property," as "my home," in which case, the last one, in a legal sense, is worded in a way that you could legally defend your home under the justification that the person was "likely to use unlawful force," while "committing a felony against someone in their home," -- the wording removes the necessity of having to be fearful for your life (as "unlawful force," isn't clearly defined and fairly ambiguous, and they're committing a felony against you in pretty much any reasonable circumstance you'd use your firearm against someone in defending your home) -- but even still, at least here, it's pretty widely known that "I was in fear for my life," are the magic words, and if someone is in your home/on your property or trying to get in, you can claim "self-defense," or "fearing for my life," in pretty much any circumstance in which you'd reasonably use a firearm against someone

edit: I should also add, the "if a person is likely to use unlawful force while committing a burglary," covers pretty much every other instance in regard to defending property -- a lot have argued the laws here are actually too loose, as people can essentially "get away with murder," because all there really needs to be as justification is a "perceived threat."

Another edit - I actually have a friend/former co-worker who killed a kid here in self-defense. He is actually in prison now, but they couldn't get him for killing the kid. It was essentially a small drug deal gone wrong. A kid from out of state (where they have incredibly strict gun laws, but incredibly lax pot laws... opposite of here) came up here to meet my friend. He brought a couple other friends with him. They had staged to rob him (my friend was trying to buy pot off the kid), and my friend was armed. Long story short, he was being strangled from behind (in a car), and his "friend" was in the front passenger seat punching him in the face. He managed to get his firearm out and shoot the kid, get out of the car, run away, and turn himself in.

He was initially let off on self-defense easily. The kids family was super wealthy and wasn't having it. They managed to get the case reopened, and he was put away on some bullshit drug offense, getting the maximum (7 years) on a felony possession charge (despite not having anything on him but the cash they were trying to steal from him). It's a really sad situation, for both parties. I don't know the kid who was killed, but he probably didn't deserve to die (even with beating the shit out of my friend and trying to rob him), and my friend is a good dude who definitely doesn't deserve to be in prison, even if he killed someone in self-defense, or tried to buy some pot

Yeah that's fair, I was interpreting "property," as "my home," in which case, the last one, in a legal sense, is worded in a way that you could legally defend your home under the justification that the person was "likely to use unlawful force," while "committing a felony against someone in their home," -- the wording removes the necessity of having to be fearful for your life (as "unlawful force," isn't clearly defined and fairly ambiguous, and they're committing a felony against you in pretty much any reasonable circumstance you'd use your firearm against someone in defending your home) -- but even still, at least here, it's pretty widely known that "I was in fear for my life," are the magic words, and if someone is in your home/on your property or trying to get in, you can claim "self-defense," or "fearing for my life," in pretty much any circumstance in which you'd reasonably use a firearm against someone

edit: I should also add, the "if a person is likely to use unlawful force while committing a burglary," covers pretty much every other instance in regard to defending property -- a lot have argued the laws here are actually too loose, as people can essentially "get away with murder," because all there really needs to be as justification is a "perceived threat."

Another edit - I actually have a friend/former co-worker who killed a kid here in self-defense. He is actually in prison now, but they couldn't get him for killing the kid. It was essentially a small drug deal gone wrong. A kid from out of state (where they have incredibly strict gun laws, but incredibly lax pot laws... opposite of here) came up here to meet my friend. He brought a couple other friends with him. They had staged to rob him (my friend was trying to buy pot off the kid), and my friend was armed. Long story short, he was being strangled from behind (in a car), and his "friend" was in the front passenger seat punching him in the face. He managed to get his firearm out and shoot the kid, get out of the car, run away, and turn himself in.

He was initially let off on self-defense easily. The kids family was super wealthy and wasn't having it. They managed to get the case reopened, and he was put away on some bullshit drug offense, getting the maximum (7 years) on a felony possession charge (despite not having anything on him but the cash they were trying to steal from him)

Yeah that's fair, I was interpreting "property," as "my home," in which case, the last one, in a legal sense, is worded in a way that you could legally defend your home under the justification that the person was "likely to use unlawful force," while "committing a felony against someone in their home," -- the wording removes the necessity of having to be fearful for your life (as "unlawful force," isn't clearly defined and fairly ambiguous, and they're committing a felony against you in pretty much any reasonable circumstance you'd use your firearm against someone in defending your home) -- but even still, at least here, it's pretty widely known that "I was in fear for my life," are the magic words, and if someone is in your home/on your property or trying to get in, you can claim "self-defense," or "fearing for my life," in pretty much any circumstance in which you'd reasonably use a firearm against someone

edit: I should also add, the "if a person is likely to use unlawful force while committing a burglary," covers pretty much every other instance in regard to defending property -- a lot have argued the laws here are actually too loose, as people can essentially "get away with murder," because all there really needs to be as justification is a "perceived threat."

Another edit - I actually have a friend/former co-worker who killed a kid here in self-defense. He is actually in prison now, but they couldn't get him for killing the kid. It was essentially a small drug deal gone wrong. A kid from out of state (where they have incredibly strict gun laws, but incredibly lax pot laws... opposite of here) came up here to meet my friend. He brought a couple other friends with him. They had staged to rob him (my friend was trying to buy pot off the kid), and my friend was armed. Long story short, he was being strangled from behind (in a car), and his "friend" was in the front passenger seat punching him in the face. He managed to get his firearm out and shoot the kid, get out of the car, run away, and turn himself in.

He was initially let off on self-defense easily. The kids family was super wealthy and wasn't having it. They managed to get the case reopened, and he was put away on some bullshit drug offense, getting the maximum (7 years) on a felony possession charge

Yeah that's fair, I was interpreting "property," as "my home," in which case, the last one, in a legal sense, is worded in a way that you could legally defend your home under the justification that the person was "likely to use unlawful force," while "committing a felony against someone in their home," -- the wording removes the necessity of having to be fearful for your life (as "unlawful force," isn't clearly defined and fairly ambiguous, and they're committing a felony against you in pretty much any reasonable circumstance you'd use your firearm against someone in defending your home) -- but even still, at least here, it's pretty widely known that "I was in fear for my life," are the magic words, and if someone is in your home/on your property or trying to get in, you can claim "self-defense," or "fearing for my life," in pretty much any circumstance in which you'd reasonably use a firearm against someone

edit: I should also add, the "if a person is likely to use unlawful force while committing a burglary," covers pretty much every other instance in regard to defending property -- a lot have argued the laws here are actually too loose, as people can essentially "get away with murder," because all there really needs to be as justification is a "perceived threat."

Another edit - I actually have a friend/former co-worker who killed a kid here in self-defense. He is actually in prison now, but they couldn't get him for killing the kid. It was essentially a small drug deal gone wrong. A kid from out of state (where they have incredibly strict gun laws, but incredibly lax pot laws... opposite of hear) came up here to meet my friend. He brought a couple other friends with him. They had staged to rob him (my friend was trying to buy pot off the kid), and my friend was armed. Long story short, he was being strangled from behind (in a car), and his "friend" was in the front passenger seat punching him in the face. He managed to get his firearm out and shoot the kid, get out of the car, run away, and turn himself in.

He was initially let off on self-defense easily. The kids family was super wealthy and wasn't having it. They managed to get the case reopened, and he was put away on some bullshit drug offense, getting the maximum (7 years) on a felony possession charge

Yeah that's fair, I was interpreting "property," as "my home," in which case, the last one, in a legal sense, is worded in a way that you could legally defend your home under the justification that the person was "likely to use unlawful force," while "committing a felony against someone in their home," -- the wording removes the necessity of having to be fearful for your life (as "unlawful force," isn't clearly defined and fairly ambiguous, and they're committing a felony against you in pretty much any reasonable circumstance you'd use your firearm against someone in defending your home) -- but even still, at least here, it's pretty widely known that "I was in fear for my life," are the magic words, and if someone is in your home/on your property or trying to get in, you can claim "self-defense," or "fearing for my life," in pretty much any circumstance in which you'd reasonably use a firearm against someone

edit: I should also add, the "if a person is likely to use unlawful force while committing a burglary," covers pretty much every other instance in regard to defending property -- a lot have argued the laws here are actually too loose, as people can essentially "get away with murder," because all there really needs to be as justification is a "perceived threat."

Another edit - I actually have a friend/former co-worker who killed a kid in self-defense. He is actually in prison now, but they couldn't get him for killing the kid. It was essentially a small drug deal gone wrong. A kid from out of state (where they have incredibly strict gun laws, but incredibly lax pot laws... opposite of hear) came up here to meet my friend. He brought a couple other friends with him. They had staged to rob him (my friend was trying to buy pot off the kid), and my friend was armed. Long story short, he was being strangled from behind (in a car), and his "friend" was in the front passenger seat punching him in the face. He managed to get his firearm out and shoot the kid, get out of the car, run away, and turn himself in.

He was initially let off on self-defense easily. The kids family was super wealthy and wasn't having it. They managed to get the case reopened, and he was put away on some bullshit drug offense, getting the maximum (7 years) on a felony possession charge

Yeah that's fair, I was interpreting "property," as "my home," in which case, the last one, in a legal sense, is worded in a way that you could legally defend your home under the justification that the person was "likely to use unlawful force," while "committing a felony against someone in their home," -- the wording removes the necessity of having to be fearful for your life (as "unlawful force," isn't clearly defined and fairly ambiguous, and they're committing a felony against you in pretty much any reasonable circumstance you'd use your firearm against someone in defending your home) -- but even still, at least here, it's pretty widely known that "I was in fear for my life," are the magic words, and if someone is in your home/on your property or trying to get in, you can claim "self-defense," or "fearing for my life," in pretty much any circumstance in which you'd reasonably use a firearm against someone

edit: I should also add, the "if a person is likely to use unlawful force while committing a burglary," covers pretty much every other instance in regard to defending property -- a lot have argued the laws here are actually too loose, as people can essentially "get away with murder," because all there really needs to be as justification is a "perceived threat"

Yeah that's fair, I was interpreting "property," as "my home," in which case, the last one, in a legal sense, is worded in a way that you could legally defend your home under the justification that the person was "likely to use unlawful force," while "committing a felony against someone in their home," -- the wording removes the necessity of having to be fearful for your life (as "unlawful force," isn't clearly defined and fairly ambiguous, and they're committing a felony against you in pretty much any reasonable circumstance you'd use your firearm against someone in defending your home) -- but even still, at least here, it's pretty widely known that "I was in fear for my life," are the magic words, and if someone is in your home/on your property or trying to get in, you can claim "self-defense," or "fearing for my life," in pretty much any circumstance in which you'd reasonably use a firearm against someone

edit: I should also add, the "if a person is likely to use unlawful force while committing a burglary," covers pretty much every other instance in regard to defending property

Yeah that's fair, I was interpreting "property," as "my home," in which case, the last one, in a legal sense, is worded in a way that you could legally defend your home under the justification that the person was "likely to use unlawful force," while "committing a felony against someone in their home," -- the wording removes the necessity of having to be fearful for your life (as "unlawful force," isn't clearly defined and fairly ambiguous, and they're committing a felony against you in pretty much any reasonable circumstance you'd use your firearm against someone in defending your home) -- but even still, at least here, it's pretty widely known that "I was in fear for my life," are the magic words, and if someone is in your home/on your property or trying to get in, you can claim "self-defense," or "fearing for my life," in pretty much any circumstance in which you'd reasonably use a firearm against someone