You can't use deadly force to defend property, period. It's arguable whether he used deadly force, and even more arguable whether or not he was defending just property. It seems to me he was not only protecting his possessions, but also his family. I don't see how the Crown could possibly think they could get a conviction here, even a bench trial (depending on the charge he's not necesarilly entitled to a jury) seems like it would be tough based on what we know. Either there's more to the story or someone is making some curious decisions.
|