Correct verdict in a case that never should have gone to trial.
Well, yes and no.
Should we as moral, upstanding, intelligent warriors/gun owners necessarily take the life of any miscreant or trespasser, just because we may have the law on our side?
There was a case a year or two back in which a very, very attractive blonde college girl was shot after being too drunk to know which house she lived in - she forced her way into her neighbors house because it was one of those places where every house is a carbon copy of the other .... If she did that at my place I have a bright flashlight near the gun and the peltior electronic ear muffs - I would not have shot her - I would have helped her, let her crash on the couch or something and told her when she came out of her blackout she should go to an AA meeting with me .... after she does the dishes and buys me coffee as penance for waking me up.
There was another case a few yrs back - I owe cassandras daddy a nickel because I lost the bet - the guy was a store owner and some robbers came in guns blazing and lost the gun fight - he shot back wounded one - he chased the others out and came back to see an unconscious one on the floor and plugged him again - in that case I was on the store owners side because they came in shooting and initiated a gunfight - all is fair in love and war and such - but he went to prison for it ...
This case was unique in NV we have SYG
lite our legislatures are not the brightest and rely on juries to have common sense to try and figure out the weird laws they write .... It seemed like our man here was guilty of violating NV SYG law, because while he owned the property he didn't live there and it was empty .... northern nevada juries however are likely to say "hell its his property, freaking druggies, to dang bad for them, I'm voting not guilty"
I agree with the jury - even though I think he is guilty of violating the law -