http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.n24.de%2Fnews%2Fnewsitem_7103330.html

Hell in the case in the link, the kids were fleeing the guys house.  That would be illegal and you would go to jail in the vast majority US states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#Germany

German law allows self-defense against an unlawful attack. Courts have interpreted this law as applicable to home invasion, including the use of lethal force against law enforcement in cases where the home owner was of the mistaken belief that the intrusion was an unlawful attack on his life.

But you do know that this case isnt really a home invasion case nor even a self defence case, right? He set up a 'trap' with an intention to kill whoever stepped on his property. It's a premeditated murder.

There was a case recently in Florida, in which a vietnam veteran shot 2 teen burglars dead even tho they were already incapacitaded from gunshot wounds and posed no further threat. The guy was recording his enitre home, hence why they were able to convict him of murder.

This is the same basic concept

As for the case.

Whether or not he's convicted will more or less depend on if they prosecution can prove that the kid could see the woman's purse.

Was the German kid lured? If so, you can't use the Castle Doctrine as a defense.

That and they'll probably try to make people feel bad about the guys house getting broken into repeatedly.

German protests have focused on Montana's self defense laws in regards to home invasions.  When they have the same laws.

It is a home invasion case.  The big difference is that he invited the home invasion.

Which is why I'd EXPECT he'd get convicted assuming the prosecution presnts the evidence well..

Though that will rely mostly on the purse I imagine.

You can't really convict someone for planning to shoot home invaders, as that's why people buy guns for self defense.   You can't really convict someone for leaving their garage door open.

It's the purse and the haidressesrs comments that they intentionally left it there as a lure that will be the big evidence pieces.

Without that, shooting someone on your property there to steal something, vs shooting someone who is activly fleeing you...

You can shoot home invaders, but there is a difference between a home invader and a tresspasser. Home invasion is violenty storming a person's home, and thus posing a direct leathal threat to the home owner. Tresspassing is simply being on a property for which you dont have a permission to be on, it doesnt justify shooting someone over that,  because it doesnt register as an 'unlawful attack on a person's life'

That is largely incorrect.  In the general sense a home invasion is simply entering someones home when there is someone else home... generally a garage is considered part of the home.

At least that's how it's defined when talking about self defense common law.

Nowhere that i am aware of defines home invasion as strictly as you are stating.  The strictest definitions of home invasion always include robberty as a motive.

Note the above where the old man was let go after shooting fleeing criminals who clearly posed him no violent harm, all they did was rob him, AND they were leaving.

Even places that have the more stringent version of robbery.  That's basically defacto going to cover everybody you don't personally know on your property.  (Well unless they can prove you were intentionally luring strangers there to kill.)

So by your definition, I can kill just any civilian that sets his foot on my property regardless of what his intention might be?? Heh, you are an American, alright

In your house.  Not property.

But that's not being an American, that's simply understanding the common laws of pretty much every country.

There are a couple outliers, basically just the UK and then some places where it's basically illegal to own guns in general... but even then it's rare.  (Actually I'm not even sure that's the case in the UK anymore, since the only reason I know that's the case in the UK is because there was a big push in 2012 to change that.)

EDIT: In fact it does look changed.  https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

The way that is written basically allows you the exact same level of self defense that you are allowed in most US states, including Montana.    As simply entering the home counts for assuming a violent attack as they say.

Generally if a burglar comes into your house, in just almost any country in the world you can do anything to defend yoruself, unless the criminal is fleeing or otherwise already disabled.

The whole crux as i said before, is showing specific premeditation.

How is this a trap? Common sense says don't walk into a stranger's garage in the middle of the night.