Just a matter of time before this creep get's a little 2nd amendment education. Be warned, you come into my house and I'm home, you WILL be looking down the barrel of something, and I'm sure my neighbors have the same exact perspective.

If I catch him in MY home, his remains can be picked up - in pieces - immediately after my shotgun is fired. And I'm SURE he will have picked up one of my steak knives and it will be found in one of his hands (whichever one is easiest to find). SPLAT goes the thief!

I'll gladly second those responses. An armed society is a polite society. People who know me know better than to show up unannounced. The consequences would prove downright unhealthy - to the intruder.
Guaranteed 0% recidivism rate.

Mark: There's being prepared to defend yourself with a firearm when physically threatened, which many would find admirable, and then there's eagerly announcing your intention to kill someone then tamper with evidence to falsely indicate you did so in self-defense, which is way over any kind of legal or ethical line. You might be a little more careful in what you say for a couple reasons:

First, you're reminding me that a lot of pro-gun people in this country are dangerous lunatics, and I'll remember that when voting.

Second, if you actually shoot an intruder in that fashion, perhaps your message will help demonstrate it was premeditated murder rather than justifiable homicide.

I don't see anything about premeditation. What he means is after the shotgun is fired, you'd be hard pressed to find remains intact. I think the steak knife in his hands means the robber tried to find a weapon, and that's all he found. Could be wrong--it depends on how you read it. Just my opinion, and that's all. But yes, there are armed lunatics--the ones going into our schools and killing our kids or terrorizing then.

I think steak knives should be banned.

Pretty sure he meant whichever *hand* is easiest to find, meaning he'd actually place the knife there after the intruder is shot. I don't like burglars, but I have no patience for these violent vigilante fantasies. We have a justice system in this country. Killing a burglar is disproportionate, and more likely Mark would mistakenly kill a loved one or rescue worker than an actual intruder. (Like Oscar Pistorius may have done.)

"Killing a burglar is disproportionate..."
So, when does he announce he means not to hurt anyone, just to steal our belongings, or do I find that out some other way?
My belief is that anyone trespassing into my home has basically left any of his rights at the door. He's there at my dispensation, not his.

@ Old Coot

I agree with you. I am not going to play host to an intruder...someone's getting detained and arrested or going down and it isn't going to be me.

The second amendment is protection not to be flaunted but respected.

Old Coot: As I understand the law, in California it's generally legal to kill an intruder while in fear for your life ("justifiable homicide"), and there will be a "rebuttable presumption" that this was your reason. So no, the burglar doesn't need to announce that he intends to hurt you. If common sense tells you you're in danger, you can shoot. (I am not a lawyer, so I can't guarantee my understanding is correct.)

But...I don't think this "rebuttable presumption" would hold up too well after boasting about intending to kill someone and falsify evidence. If you're not actually afraid, killing a burglar is not self-defense; it's grossly disproportionate revenge for the burglary. If you're found out, you will go to prison.

California, despite its other flaws, has maintained the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine of law for over 100 years now as you can see here:

Wikipedia, Stand your ground: Web Link

Wikipedia, Castle doctrine: Web Link

SFGate article, California courts reaffirm Stand Your Ground: Web Link

One additional web link to Los Angeles' Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Law Review article (14.4MB, 257 pages) about self-defense in California. Clicking the following web link will bring up a page asking where to save the PDF file.

IX. Self-Defense: Web Link

"CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his ground and defend himself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating."

That's the law. My safety and my family's trump the perp's. Basically, unattended "man-traps" are verboten, but eliminating a threat personally is OK.

Fair enough.

"Old Coot" is correct. Section 506 is in the document entitled "Judicial Council of California ; Criminal Jury Instructions ; CALCRIM 2013" which is a 10MB, 2456-page PDF document that can be downloaded from the following web link:

calcrim_juryins.pdf: Web Link