[Oohrah]

I am always armed. However, if possible a call to 911. In the country where sometimes there is a timely response, sometimes not, or there may not be coverage during this period of time.
Not knowing numbers of intruders, I would station myself where I had cover, but where they could not slip by. Chances are their hands will be full or will be hampered in whatever interrested them to take. Once an assessment can be made, a sudden challenge can be given, and action taken in reguard to their response, after they leave your house. Might get lucky and your local LEO can take care of it, but here I could very well be on my own!

[superc]

If humanely possible you should ALWAYS call 911 first. In the instance I wrote of, it just simply wasn't physically possible. Cell phones hadn't been invented yet and all nearby payphones were inoperable. Calling 911 establishes your identity, and if nothing else, you now at least know someone may come. If you kill the intruder and it can be shown you could have called 911 but chose not to, you may be in for a world of legal hurt.

Incidentally, if you survive the encounter and the bad guy is laying somewhere in a pool of blood, during your call to 911 remember to be very concerned for the health of the poor guy you were forced to hurt and be very clear he needs an ambulance. You will want the tapes to show the world you aren't a heartless monster and you used the minimum force necessary to stop the attack. Rule 2, don't say anything that will be an obvious falsehood to the first responders. Rule 3, while waiting for the cops, call your lawyer. Provide fact summaries to the first responders, then tell them you have called your attorney and he/she will provide more details. Follow exactly whatever advice the lawyer has told you.

[Oohrah]

I totally agree with your choices of action. I believe some of those states with the "castle Law" perhaps the choices you use may not be as critical of the actions taken. Those actions taken with the belief that they were carried out during the fear for your life or others may lessen the level of force liabilitity. However, it may be acceptable on a law level, but questioned at a civil level. So, it's back to giving no information, and refer back to a lawyer. There are no set standards. Many times a shooting will be cleared as reasonable action and rightful, to ending up in a civil suit where the out come can differ. The OJ case comes to mind, but many times a LEO shoots without options, and is cleared. Next the family has the officer in court for some form of excessive force, and loss of the dirt bag killed, and a wrongful death. Mostly settled out of court with undisclosed amount of money being paid Once cleared it should be the end of it, but real life puts the shooter back at the head of line, along with court time should he survive, and paying for his injuries that hamper his criminal career from continuing on.