That's not even what the law there says - it says he had a right to shoot someone if he had a reasonable belief someone in the home was (I didn't look but I'd guess) imminently in danger of assault or worse. I don't like the law; I don't think the law should exist, but the law isn't in the same zip code as the right to protect his house.
Actually, that's the old law. The new one expands the right to use deadly force.
45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.
(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or
(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.
My bold.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Montana-Gun-Laws.htm
Worth noting is that
burglary is classified as a forcible felony. My reading is that according to the law, if someone breaks into your house you can shoot them to prevent them from stealing your TV. If the garage has an access door to the house, it could be considered as part of the house; if you surprised someone stealing your bike there, you can shoot them. You need not be in fear of your life or safety. (I think this is the gray area, though)
Also worth noting is what burglary actually consists of. State laws vary, but the common legal definition is unlawful entry with the intent to commit a
felony, assault or theft.
If you invite a friend in to watch TV and he steals your coin collection, that's theft, but not burglary.
If he breaks in while you're away, (or even walks in through an unlocked door) that's burglary and theft.
If he comes by while you're away, meaning to steal your stash but can't find it and leaves empty handed, that's still a burglary.
If he thinks you're messing with his girlfriend, kicks down the door, and smashes up your TV, that's criminal trespass and vandalism, but not burglary. And not a felony
If punches you in the face, that's assault, and now burglary as well.
And if a kid reaches through an open window and takes a pie you've just baked off the table next to the window, guess what -- that's a burglary. Entry is any physical intrusion.
(I am of course to an attorney, but I have a fairly good grasp of criminal law, I believe. If I'm wrong about any of this, perhaps Mark can weigh in and correct me.)
My point? Just saying something is a burglary and burglary is a felony may be technically correct, but circumstances vary widely. A slavish adherence to the letter of the law as a justification for violent acts toward a perpetrator is, imo, incomprehensible.
And puzzling when used by those who profess to have a libertarian bent.
