imported post
I only got to see the first 2 scenarios. Seemed to me they were set-ups because of the way they were edited.
Scenario #1 was stopped as the BG began reaching behind his back. The question "Would you shoot or not shoot?" was asked at that point. After the commercial break they come back & show (from a reverse angle) the BG pulling a handgun from SOB, and then (from homeowner's angle) pointing gun. Talking head lawyer Steve Benjamin says "imminent threat of death or great bodily injury" and the implication was it would be a good shoot. Sure, with no other witnesses, the BG ending up with his own gun on the floor nearby as he lies shot, and a good lawyer to remind you to STFU, you might get away with it.
My point is - at the time they stopped the film, there was no imminent threat - just a BG reaching behind his back. For his business card? For the flowers he brought for your daughter? For his gun? Who knows yet?
Scenario #2 showed the same BG grabbing a purse and beating feet out the door before the homeowner could get into the entry hallway. Homeowner hits the door as the BG is halfway across the lawn with the purse. Clearly a "no-shoot" situation and explained as such.
Getting back to scenario #1 - BG was confronted by homeowner who had gun in hand. The split second needed to see what the BG brings from behind his back PROBABLY would not result in homeowner getting shot by BG - at least as I saw things. YMMV.
stay safe.
skidmark