I am not a lawyer, so I am not certain whether this would fly in court. But, my "lay-person" (i.e. not legally trained) argument would run like this:
If they use aggression and violence to enter my house, then they have already proven themselves to be aggressive. So if they are "smashing the windows and breaking down the door" (as stated), they already differentiate themselves from those who try to enter the house by stealth or by trickery. It is reasonable to assume that if they are (needlessly) violent against my things they have the character of those who would be violent against me.
Moreover, if their reaction to seeing me point a gun in their direction is to continue to advance, then they are as good as stating their desire for physical confrontation. If they merely wanted to graffiti, the natural reaction to seeing me with a gun would be to leave, and go somewhere else to graffiti. If they advance on my gun, the natural assumption is that they have some intent on my person.
As I said, I'm not a lawyer. But in my mind, that is sufficient (aggressive violent behavior, and personal intent against me) for me to
reasonably fear for my life, and therefore act on that fear in self-defense.
So how long would I wait? I wait until they break violently into my home, at which point I let them see me pointing a gun at them. If they do not IMMEDIATELY stop and retreat.... then I fire. That's long enough.
P.S. I'd still aim for the shoulders and the kneecaps, though.

Bookmarks