Originally Posted by dahermit
All of the information about what happened came right from the shooter/homeowner. If we are to believe everything he said, then we must believe that, as he stated, he had been burglarized from 8 to 10 times in the past. In that light, it would have been illogical for him to not eliminate the continuing threat of being burglarized an indefinite number of times in the future.
Aside from that, for you folks who have a bible based moral system, I do believe that it says something about if a thief digs under the wall of your house, it is not murder if you strike him dead. It does not say you have to stop shooting (or striking), him if the threat is incapacitated. Law is law, not morality.
Eliminating the threat of future property crime by killing a human being is not recognized as legally justifiable in any jurisdiction in the U.S. that I am aware of. Defending your life, yes. Defending your home during an active threat, yes. Executing an unarmed, injured person, no matter how reprehensible their past conduct? No.
I don't base my beliefs on a biblical text in this case but the long, storied, jurisprudentially dense history of self defense and defense of the home law. The principles and laws at work do not support in any way what he did. Wherever even slightly reasonable the law prizes human life over all.