Hi
Firstly, you know as well as I do that every one of the western democracies has the "innocent until proven" concept at the heart of their legal systems. So stop trying the old "we're free" routine, which is blatantly not appropriate or relevant.
Ummm... actually... I don't.
I've studied my legal rights and responsibilities over here so that I know, pretty much exactly, where I stand when it's guns-out, but I've not done it for any other countries as I don't anticipate carrying a firearm in any of them.
If it came off as snarkey, I'm apologize and I'll try not to do it again.
Moving swiftly along, however, in Canada, Europe, and the Antipodes - and I mention these countries to make clear that the US isn't in a majority here - the position is simple; the homeowner did shoot the intruder. The homeowner has committed murder or, depending on circumstances, manslaughter/culpable homicide. That element does not require to be proven.
He shot the guy to death, yes, but until someone comes up with a verdict in court, or gets a bye from the coroners' inquest or grand jury, it's not murder or manslaughter, right? Until then, he's just a suspect (again, over here - I don't know how it's implemented over yonder).
The homeowner's defence is that of extenuating circumstances, i.e. that he believed his life to be in serious jeopardy and, under the circumstances, it was fair and reasonable for that person to employ proportionate force. It is the defence team's job to prove that was the case, and the prosecutor's job to hold it up to the cold light of proper scrutiny.
Again, over here, cold light of proper scrutiny be damned: A prosecutor's job is to do whatever he has to do, within the law, to obtain a conviction, just as it's the defense's job to do whatever
he has to, again, within the law, to obtain clemency.
I'd always wondered about the accuracy of British TV law. Your guys always come off as so... I dunno... polite.
In Scotland, for example, this is classed as a "special defence" in the same category as an alibi (wherein the accused has to prove that he was elsewhere).
Not over here. The prosecution has to prove all phases of the case.
If I say that I was in Alaska at the time of the shooting, the prosecution has to place me at the scene of the incident. If I say that I was in deadly fear of the person I shot, the prosecution has to show that there was no sane and logical reason for that fear to exist (like, for instance, that the two intruders were on their knees with their hands up, posing neither danger nor threat).
Also, in murder/manslaughter cases, all proof has to be, "beyond doubt." That means that if there is any possibility that I
was in Alaska at the time, and the prosecution can't place me, positively, at the scene of the shooting, I get to walk away.
I don't have to prove anything. (That whole, "I as in Alaska," "no you weren't," thing would probably have been ironed out at the grand jury level, though.)
The dead body is usually a bit of a giveaway.
AHAHAHA! A DEAD giveaway? /snorts
More seriously: A dead body isn't proof of criminal wrongdoing. At that point, it's just another source of evidence.
If it were I who'd GENERATED the dead body, however, I'd expect to be detained by the police as a suspect in a killing, but that's all it would be, and not homicide or manslaughter at that point. Even if I were charged with murder, I'd still only be, "the alleged killer," right up until the time I became, "the defendant."
In that case we're dealing with yet another case where US law seems to have charted it's own wee route. I note, however, that a number of other US posters have advised that their individual states apply the same basic approach as the European system. So perhaps it's just your wee bitty of the US, eh?
It may be. Indiana has some odd attitudes about a lot of things.
For instance, Indiana sided with the slave states when it came to owning people (look up the history of American gun control: Slave states and Indiana were the only places you had to have a license to carry a concealed firearm, mostly so folks could know which abolitionists they could safely harass), but with the unionists when it came to fighting over the matter of a state being allowed to determine the legality of said ownership. (Pro-slavery, but more strongly pro-union, you see. I think that Indiana was the only state that had armed forces on both sides of the conflict.)
More recently the state considered defining the value of Pi to be
THREE, even. Ok - all stated values of Pi are approximations, right, but WOW... 3 is just...
LAZY!
On the other hand, please remember that until recently, the state of Texas, in an attempt to abrogate its, "wild West," image, had some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation!
All this, "Castle Doctrine," stuff is
terra incognita to the Texas courts.
And, of course, in presenting their evidence you would expect significant cross-examination of the witnesses (i.e. the burglars). Much will rest on how much weight the jury attaches to their testimony, together with the forensics.
Indeed. I'm a great fan of forensics. I'd rather have one single good, solid fingerprint than a hundred eye-witnesses.
The only problem with forensics is that an unfortunate number of US citizens don't know enough science or history to be able to understand testimony involving forensic science.
Lol - and - was it Ambrose Bierce that said that a jury is a group of 12 persons who were too dumb to figure a way out of jury duty, employed to decide who has the better lawyer?
Note: I've tried to find a follow-up on the OP in the Laredo, TX, news.
No information yet....
On the other hand, I'm good with people having up to, say, fragmentation hand grenades. 
