I 911 were to be dialed and go, there’s

I believe that homeowners shouldn’t be allowed to build deadly traps in their homes because, for example, let’s say the man were to have a heart attack or any other medical crisis, and 911 were to be dialed and go, there’s the risk of wounding or killing someone on site if the police or emergency services were not aware of the trap set up. And, even if they were to, it would take time to get around or find a way to disable the trap, time that could either keep the man dead or alive in the house. There’s a big difference in the irony in this situation, as well as the man shooting the gun rather than the trap. First off, the man has something the trap doesn’t, and that’s the brain. Since this particular situation was with a kid (teen), I think if Ceballos were to have the gun, he would think twice before shooting a teen because he’s just a kid at the end of the day and he has the choice of wounding, killing, or not even pulling the trigger at all, and a trap like this wouldn’t have had second thoughts or wouldn’t think of any other choices, just shooting Stephen instead. Also, even if he were to shoot, Ceballos could have the choice of wounding him by shooting in the leg to prevent a risk of killing him rather than a trap shooting Stephen in the face, an area of high risk to kill him.I believe a person has the right to use deadly force to defend property on two conditions. First, if a warning was issued by the homeowner to the intruder, and second, if the person believed the intruder was going to commit a felony or cause injury. Legally, people did have the right to use deadly force to prevent the intruder from going into the home and if the intruder was given a warning not to enter. This was decided after State v. Patterson 45 Vt. 308 (1873). However, modern laws have limited this to only using deadly force if the intruder is reasonably believed to commit a felony or harm towards others within the home, and this was decided from Morrison v. State, 371 S.W.2d 441 (Tenn. 1963). Also, I believe that if someone is using deadly force to protect life, I think that there’s almost no situation where deadly force is too much to protect a life. I believe that if they really pose a deadly threat towards you or anyone in the home, and you can prove in court that deadly force was necessary for the situation, then I think by all means, you have the right. However, the second reason I just stated doesn’t go through everyone’s mind when being threatened in a home, and I think this is where deadly force is a little bit questioned, mainly because someone could just injure or kill without thinking about what’s gonna happen in the future from doing that. But overall, if you believe it’s necessary and that the person does pose as a threat, then I believe it’s not wrong to use deadly force for the matter.