Forget capital punishment (I have my own doubts about its efficacy as a deterrant - my support for the concept is based on the terminal outcome), this is a clear cut case of the importance of castle law, stand your ground laws, and the right to bear arms. As this case shows, reporting a threat to the authorities is far more complicated than that solution is presented by those who seek to give law enforcement a monopoly on weapons. While this is an extreme case (and given the circumstances, an argument could be made that it could be a case of "he-said, she-said" though the described method of entry and marital situation of the deceased render his innocence unlikely), there are still limitations to the ability of law enforcement to handle such things, leaving a gap between proper respect for civil rights and proper empowerment of the authorities to restrain crime. Giving people the freedom to act in their own defense is the best solution to all sorts of injustices from sexual harassment on up. The abstract possibility of lethal punishment IF you get caught, and IF you get convicted and IF you get sentenced and IF your appeals and other recourse fails, cannot be nearly the deterrant of the increased liklihood of encountering armed opposition to whatever violation you are attempting to perpetrate.

It makes me wonder why we put up with the TSA, when THEY have failed to stop a single terrorist attack, while the one 911 plane that failed to hit its target did so because of the actions of the very class of people the TSA & FAA seek to disarm, restrict and invade the privacy thereof.