General Discussion

I can well believe that robbery was the motive, and I can't really begrudge the homeowner's being armed. I don't like laws that indemnify the shooter in advance, though, or that killing all the intruders means that no one can testify to an excessive use of deadly force.

"Your home, your castle" is not a blanket rule, not excusing, say, child/spouse abuse. Testosterone-fueled get tough" laws can be too easily invoked to cover hasty or even malicious killing.

If it were to turn out that all the deceased were shot in the back, or that no weapon other than the AR-15 had been brandished? That the intruders were fleeing before any shots were fired? Even the most ardent self-defense advocates should question such an outcome. There may be no witnesses left alive who could tell us what really happened.

Lots of questions, many rendered unanswerable by what may hasty decisions made by an amateur.