|
There's one factor I think laws like this tend not to consider.
When the police encounter armed resistance, their reaction is not often "Hey, we're being fired at. This could be an error on our end, and this could be legitimate self defense by a law abiding citizen. Let's back off and check over everything." No, I would suspect it's more "He's shooting at us! Call in the whole world and let's get the guy!"
If the police have made enough mistakes to get to that point I would generally think they would expect any armed resistance to be justification to storm the house, kill the occupant, burn it to the ground, and salt the earth (well, maybe not ALL that...). I'm not bashing the police here, I'm saying their reaction is usually going to be to INCREASE the force used, not de-escalate.
Sure, your actions might be viewed as right in retrospect, but by then you'll be in the hospital or the morgue. The whole thing just isn't ever going to end up well for the homeowner no matter how it goes. IMO, this is why it should be that much higher a priority for the police to only use such tactics when absolutely necessary and when properly checked over (several times).
|