There has been quite a discussion of this case on the Ohioans For Concealed Carry forum (thread here).
A county prosecutor in a different county had these comments:
Werz wrote:While that may be your opinion, it may not be an opinion shared by jurors. Shooting someone with a gun - in the back - is still shooting someone in the back. Even by Old West movie rules, that's not a good shoot.Bama.45 wrote:If they are running and have a gun they are still a threat.
Obviously, he is talking about drugs in the home.Werz wrote:Well, this thread is on its third page, and nobody has mentioned the 600-pound gorilla ...
I don't know the underlying facts of this case, and I don't really feel motivated to learn them. But let's face facts. In my experience, most home invasions involving two or more armed intruders are about one thing. Most everyone here knows what that is. Under those circumstances, the homeowner is not usually cut a lot of slack. It's kind of like the "attractive nuisance" doctrine.