Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
The proper action in that scenario, where your life isnt actively being threatened is to call the police, not put two in his head then do it. that is exactly what a vigilante is and still is supported by the castle doctrine which states that fear of death is imminent. It cannot be imminent in a scenario where hes the one hiding. You just made yourself judge, jury and executioner of a guy because of what he did to somebody else, not what he was doing at the time, to you. A lot of states you can shoot somebody inside your house for just about anything and have just cause, outside your house and that changes drastically because its no longer imminent.

I hope youre wrong about that and he gets the death penalty but really im not sure if theres reason to think one way or the other on it at the moment. Curious but why do you think he wont?
No, that is not what a vigilante is nor is that an accurate interpretation of the Castle Doctrine.

Wicked's definition is vigilante is spot on and the precise legal interpretation. The Castle Doctrine allows anyone to defend their home AND property against any person who the OWNER feels is threatening. Granted, a few Castle Doctrine states have an imminent peril clause in them, but most do not. I know in Texas, if a person is on your property and engaged in a felony, deadly force is authorized.

Take the exact same scenario with the terrorist suspect is hiding on your property and is armed, you're free to dispatch him in any manner you see fit -- deadly force or call the police; it's the property owners prerogative. Him having a weapon makes it a no-brainer. You can, and it seems like you are, argue that the *safest* thing to do may have been to retreat and call the police, but from a legal standpoint, 50 states in the country would have have found the property owner justified in using deadly force against an armed person on his property.