[MMMMMM]

Let me qualify a statement. I don't quite believe the home invaders should have "no rights at all." I think they should have the right not to be tortured, for instance. However, they are committing an act of aggression against the homeowner by entering to rob. The homeowner has NO WAY to know if they will merely rob him or if they will do much worse. The homeowner should not be required by law to take any further risks. If he chooses he can wait and see what develops. Maybe he can reason with the invaders. Maybe they won't beat him or kill him and they'll only take his money or possessions. But if he follows this path of increased risk, it should be at his own choosing; it should not be required by law that he allow himself to be jeopardized further. Therefore, if the homeowner does not choose to take this further risk, to in essence put himself at the mercy of these home invading criminals, he should have the option to shoot them with zero legal repercussions. They are the transgressors; they are the ones who chose to embark on this course of action and put themselves and the homeowner in jeopardy. The homeowner is the victim, not the burglars--and it is an immoral law that requires the victim to allow himself to be victimized further by willful aggressors, and requires him to take the chance of grave injury or death for himself or his loved ones.

Yes, burglars should have rights too: to receive a fair trial and not receive barbaric punishment by the court afterwards. However in the act of the burglary itself they should not have the right to expect not to be shot by a homeowner acting in self-defense, and they should not be able to rely on the law to assist them in their villainous endeavor--which it does, by making homeowners afraid to act in self-defense or defense of property if they so deem it prudent.