[OldMarksman]

In NC you can use deadly force to prevent someone from breaking in to your home if you believe that they are doing so with the intent to commit a felony....even if that felony is merely burglary or armed robbery.

But the phrase was "just to steal." Stealing is defined as theft or larceny, and it is something else entirely from burglary or armed robbery, either of which, unlike "just" stealing, poses a very serious threat to safety of the occupants of a home.

The distinction is very important under the law, both as it pertains to the justification of the use of deadly force and as it will affect the passing of sentence on the intruder by a judge in a court of law.

The difference has been pointed out more than once in this thread.

I could be wrong, but I believe some states still allow horse thieves to be put to death.
And if you can put a man to death for stealing a horse, I don't see why you wouldn't put a man to death for stealing goods from another man's home.

Yes, you are most assuredly wrong.

By the way, the justification for executing horse thieves in some territories was that taking the horse from a man in the wilderness was tantamount to murder. That time passed long ago.

After all, how do you determine if they are a deadly threat or not?
YOU BECOME THE JUDGE.

How do you determine if you need to use deadly force?
YOU ARE THE JURY.

Well, no, not at all. Not by a long shot. You have not been sworn to enforce the law or empowered to administer it. You cannot decide guilt and you cannot pass sentence.

Should you use deadly force, you will have to present evidence justifying the otherwise unlawful act, and should the case go to trial court, a jury will decide, based on the evidence you provide, whether your beliefs at the time of the act were reasonable based on the law and based on what you knew at the time, whether you in fact believed them, and whether they justify the use of deadly force.

Should they decide otherwise, you will then be a convicted felon.

Inside the home, and given the fact of a forcible entry, your burden would be a lot easier than it would otherwise be.

If I come home and an intruder has broken in, I'm not going have...

This might be good time to point out to you that if you "come home and...," the castle law likely does not apply, where you live or anywhere else. You have to be occupying the home.

Heres the wording for NC:

A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry ...

It's virtually the same wherever I've looked.

Not too long ago, a law abiding homeowner returned to his home in Washington State (where the castle doctine is not codified explicitly, but is esatablished by judicial precedent) to find an intruder in the house on the couch. He killed the man and has been charged with murder.

That doesn't mean that he did not have the right to defend himself, but the charging authority deemed that he did not shoot for that purpose, and the fact is, the castle doctrine did not apply.

Maybe he has been exonerated, maybe not, but either way he has not been happy, one can reasonably guarantee.

Might I suggest that you inquire about some training in your area.