You obviously go into the fetal position and try and reason, hope he doesn't rape or kill you, your wife, kids.

His/her life matters, so you can't take it even if it means defending your own.

(Obviously sarcasm, but that's the thought process of these people)

Leave via the back door?

And abandon your kids?

One reason I bring this up is that a "duty to retreat" requirement manufactured by the Massachusetts courts was used to convict a man in the early '80s who wasn't willing to do that. There's a previous better known case were a woman was convicted because she didn't try to climb out of the high windows in her basement apartment.

How is it even possible for a jury to convict? The jury, judge and prosecutor's thought process are so foreign to me as to be another species.

That's what I though, but I read it in the unsympathetic Boston Globe as it proceeded, even they couldn't spin it into anything but a travesty. Well, to someone from outside the state.

Massachusetts is viciously anti-gun. Except, of course, towards the connected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_University_of_Alabama_in_...

I lived on the second story of a crappy apartment complex. There were no backdoors or fire escapes. And why should I have to grab my wife and run? What is it about this dangerous criminal invading my home that requires me to risk my wife's and my life over his? How is that just in any sense of the word?

You already risk you and your wife's lives by having a gun in the house.

How?

(Can't wait to see the study cited that considers suicide a "risk to you and your wife's lives")