Do we have an inherent right to defend our property?
The Constitution is silent on the issue. So you must look to state law.
Deadly force by police officers as well as civilian’s force can only legally be used to prevent death or serious injury to yourself or others. A few states have passed laws that allow a homeowner to defend his properly with deadly force.

What is the policy reason or basis for the statutory right to defend your home?
These laws are known as the “Castle Doctrine” stemming from the old adage, “A man’s home is his castle.”

Without castle doctrine, if you were to shoot an intruder in your home, the burden would be on you to prove:
· that the intruder presented a serious danger,
· and that using deadly force was your last resort.

Does Missouri have a castle doctrine law?
Yes. In 2007, a castle doctrine law was passed by the state legislature and signed by Governor Blunt.

So castle doctrine removes some of that burden of proof from a person defending her home?
Right. And it seems more logical – if someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night, a reasonable person is going to assume that the intruder presents a danger. Castle doctrine makes that assumption part of the law.

So the man in Texas who shot and killed two burglars was protected by that state’s castle doctrine?
Yes, although that was a somewhat unusual case. The burglars were breaking into his neighbor’s house, not his house, but a provision of the Texas law extends castle doctrine to a neighbor’s home if the neighbor has asked you to watch over it. In addition, the man was in no danger until he went outside and confronted the men, and he made statements to a 911 operator that he was going to go out and kill them. Frankly, it’s surprising that he wasn’t indicted.

So you think his actions weren’t covered by castle doctrine?
Considering that the shootings seemed premeditated to some extent, and that he actively sought a confrontation with the men, it seems like it probably should have at least gone to trial, but the grand jury wouldn’t indict him. It was likely a very sympathetic jury.