To stop a burglar

I don't care if the perp had multiple wounds.  It is established law that if one's home is invaded and one is threatened, one can defend with deadly force.  Someone advancing on me is a threat.  Much better that the wounds are from the front, however.  If such is the case, as was initially reported, thee is no way 12 jurors will convict him of anythng assuming that an indictment can be obtained.

Of course, as Noah will tell you, any prosector worth a damn can indict a ham sandwich.

It is established law that if one's home is invaded and one is threatened, one can defend with deadly force.

That's the point.  If the thief was no longer a threat and the kid kept hitting/stabbing/slicing him... then no more self defense protection.  I am not saying right or wrong.  Just saying if the coroner finds it like that, then the kid will get charged.

No offense, but the college kid will NOT be tried for murder, lol. Murder is a premeditated act with intent to kill. Even if he overacted, he will not be charged for murder, but more likley a low grade manslaughter charge at best (and only if it is found that he struck to kill a retreating intruder, and didn't defend against one that was lunghing at him to do harm). That charge at most could carry a sentence of 10-15 years, out in 4 on good behaviour. Manslaughter is considered killing on impulse, like you shot someone during a road rage incident, or killed someone with a knife in a bar fight. You didn't intend to take a life, but once a situation occured, you overacted and caused a mortal wound. On the other hand, if you hunted that person, planned the attack and it resulted in death, and evidence was presented that you planned not only the confrontation, but also the outcome, that is indeed murder.

I know from what I speak above and will not say more why (but no I didn't kill anyone lol).

Killing someone who breaks into your home is never murder. You can't plan someone burgling your place of residence

You can't plan someone burgling your place of residence

Not true.  I'll leave it at that 

Manslaughter is considered killing on impulse, like you shot someone during a road rage incident, or killed someone with a knife in a bar fight. You didn't intend to take a life, but once a situation occured, you overacted and caused a mortal wound.

Right.  Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or reck-lessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.

Remember, everything I said was IF the coroner finds that the burglar received a mortal wound after signs indicated the burglar was no longer a threat.  Then it's murder.

Great point in this is with the IG trial we had for Father Edwin.  He was convicted of Murder.  It because he caused a mortal wound after the vicitms were "no longer considered a viable threat" to anyone at the time of the incident.

Odd, this is the second samurai sword death I've heard of within 5 years. I never thought I'd hear of it again.

I don't think the kid will be tried for murder, but if things don't look like self-defense, he's going to be a little unhappy....