Well, I guess fear results in either fight or flight, so some people will instinctively attempt to physically repel the person that they see as a threat.

If it's not found to be self defence, then he should get whats coming to him. He's worse than the burglar, murder is murder.

Edit: Charges dropped.

I don't see why they arrested him on a murder charge. Isn't murder specifically premeditated?
If they charge him at all, it should be a manslaughter charge.
It doesn't seem that at any point the elderly man specifically planned to murder the burglar. Unless there's a piece of information withheld, like if the burglar had like 48 stabwounds or something.

Edit: Ah, I see the charges were drooped. Anything else would have been surprising.

Exactly, and always should be.

It's no doubt horrible to be arrested for something like this but there should always be an investigation. There can't be an automatic get out of jail just because the person you killed was in your home. It's the intent to kill that matters, and as far as I am concerned intent to steal someones life should always be considered beyond intent to steal someones possessions.

If someone breaks into a home it's perfectly reasonable to deter them (eg brandish a knife, point a gun) and if that person advances on you or threatens you in any way it's perfectly reasonable to defend yourself. If in the process of this you kill the burglar then so be it, it's not murder and I don't think it's manslaughter (not sure on the definition of manslaughter but I imagine there has to be negligence) so there should be no charge.

There has to be an investigation to find out what happened, you can't just take the word of the survivor.

You can't just kill someone because he entered your home. He has to be a thread to your life i.e. trying to kill you, only then in self defense of killing someone by protecting your or the life of others is being justified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

I don't think it has to be premeditated as in planned well beforehand, but if you intend to kill someone and then do so it's murder, however long the time is from initial intent to the deed.

I think it might be either: a) the papers sensationalising things for effect. The police have to question him to find out what happened, and because he is held by the police the best story to sell is "man arrested on murder charge for defending himself"
or b) if someone is killed it is automatically "arrested on murder charge" until it can be proved otherwise, they don't leave them free to skip the country while they try to determine what happened.

I'm more concerned about that butchered thread title. That's criminal.

it's not like he ran towards the burglars and stabbed them while they were fleeing. That would be manslaughter.
In this case he was actively being attacked by them (or at least one of them), so definitely self defence.

I think you guys are debating something besides the point. He broke in to your home and is trying to steal something. Killing him should be 100% legal when he's trying to take something that is yours. There have been studies that have shown that public executions and cutting off of limbs for shop lifting/thievery have lead to reductions in those crimes in past societies. When someone breaks in to your home they know that there's a chance they will die. Whenever you do something that you know may result in such a consequence then you've essentially signed a liability waver for whatever happens.

The only investigation that should be needed is whether the the guy tried to burglar your home.

Why not? Maybe that's what the law says in some places, but that doesn't make it right. He took the risk, he gets the consequences.

So, you support public executions?