https://www.ktvu.com/news/oakland-homeowner-arrested-after-fatally-shooting-robbery-suspect
That said, just about every news article has made it a point to mention that the homeowner was in possession of a stolen Colt Python which he used to shoot one of the alleged home invaders. That wouldn't be much of a deal for me except that a lot of people in the dreaded comment sections, on either side of the issue, seem to think that this is an important factor in whether or not the homeowner is guilty of murder.
As reported by several sources, the homeowner was being held on suspicion of murder, not due to his possession of a stolen gun.
This seems to come back to a conversation that I had more times than I care to remember regarding the Kyle Rittenhouse case.
It seems like a lot of people have taken stipulations in self-defense laws that prohibit claims of self-defense for people who are actively committing crimes, and stretching their meanings to create excuses to throw people in prison on murder, attempted murder, or battery charges if the person wasn't completely legally clean.
That's not what the intent is in any state. These stipulations are meant to evaluate the element of innocence regarding people who are actively committing a dangerous crime. Namely, if you're committing an armed bank robbery, and you shoot a person who tried to subdue you with a knife, you can't claim that you acted in self-defense.
It's never been a thing that you lose your right to self-defense because you were in illegal possession of what you used to defend yourself.
We can even go back to the Bernie Goetz case in 1984 in NYC. Goetz shot four assailants who were attacking him on the DC metro. Goetz was charged with attempted murder among other charges. He was only found guilty of the illegal possession of the gun.
During the Rittenhouse case, people were claiming, and probably still will falsely claim, that Rittenhouse was in illegal possession of the rifle, and therefore couldn't claim self-defense. Rittenhouse was in legal possession; but, even if he weren't, it was the assault by Joseph Rosenbaum that caused the sequence of events.
Likewise, in the case of this homeowner, the legal status of his possession of the gun is irrelevant to whether or not his use of deadly force was justified.