Self-defense / D1
Shooting an armed intruder
At night, a stranger armed with a knife breaks into the person's home. The person shoots and kills the intruder with a lawfully held gun.
What we score
What does the state typically do to the homeowner?
Default assumptions: Unless a vignette says otherwise, the person is a 30-year-old citizen of sound mind with no criminal record, acting alone, on their own behalf and not for profit, in an ordinary residential area. Where subnational units (states, provinces, cantons, Länder) make their own law, each unit is scored and the result is weighted by population. 'The state' includes police, prosecutors, courts, regulators, tax authorities and anyone acting on their orders, including platforms obeying takedown orders.
Score anchors
Both the law score and the practice score use these anchors. Half points are used when a country sits between two of them.
| Score | What it means for this vignette |
|---|---|
| 10 | Presumed lawful by statute; no arrest, no charge, civil immunity. |
| 8 | Lawful if reasonable; brief investigation, almost never charged. |
| 6 | Lawful only if strictly proportionate; usually arrested and investigated for months before clearance. |
| 4 | Frequently charged; acquittal common but costly. |
| 2 | Typically convicted of a lesser offence: fine or under 1 year. |
| 1 | Typically convicted: 1 to 5 years. |
| 0 | Typically convicted: over 5 years. |
Evidence used: Self-defence statute or code (castle doctrine, proportionality, presumptions); prosecutorial guidance; reported home-defence cases.
How each country scores
| Country | Law | Practice | Process | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 8.5 | 8 | 0 | 8.2 | Every state recognises the castle doctrine, and most have statutes that presume a person who forcibly enters a home is a deadly threat. Florida 776.013 is an example; Florida 776.032 also gives criminal and civil immunity and bars arrest without probable cause that the force was unlawful. Seven states (AL, FL, KS, KY, OK, SC, TN) limit arrests of people claiming self-defence. In practice a homeowner who shoots an armed intruder is questioned and the death investigated, then rarely charged. |
| Czechia | 8 | 7 | −0.5 | 6.9 | Criminal Code § 29 makes self-defence lawful unless it was 'manifestly disproportionate' to the attack. A 2021 constitutional amendment added the right to defend life with arms. In the 2021 Vochov case, a homeowner who shot an axe-armed intruder was not arrested, but police investigated for about eight months before closing the case as self-defence. No castle doctrine or presumption exists. |
| Ireland | 8 | 7 | −0.5 | 6.9 | Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011 s2 makes it no offence for an occupant to use force, including lethal force (s2(7)), against an intruder they believe has entered to commit a crime, if the force is reasonable 'in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be'. An honest belief is enough (s2(4)), and s2(5) and s3 remove any duty to retreat from the home. There is no presumption or immunity: gardaí investigate any death and send a file to the DPP. Home-defence killings are rare, and no charging data were found. |
| Switzerland | 7 | 7 | −0.5 | 6.5 | Art. 15 allows defence against an unlawful attack 'by means that are reasonable in the circumstances'. Art. 16(2) excuses excess caused by excusable excitement or panic, so a homeowner who shoots an armed intruder at night is usually justified. There is no statutory presumption, and every killing is investigated by the prosecutor. Convictions have followed only where the burglar was fleeing (Thun 1993: 5.5 years; Emmenbrücke 1999: 3 years). |
| Germany | 7 | 7 | −0.5 | 6.5 | Self-defence (§ 32 StGB) justifies whatever defence is 'necessary', with no proportionality test and no duty to yield. With firearms, courts require a stepped approach (threat, warning shot, non-lethal shot) where time allows. Any fatal shooting opens a homicide investigation that can last months. A knife-armed intruder at night is normally a clear case and is closed without charges. |
| Denmark | 7 | 7 | −0.5 | 6.5 | § 13 straffeloven justifies defence that is necessary to repel an unlawful attack and not 'obviously' excessive given the danger, the attacker and the interest attacked. § 13(2) also excuses excess caused by fright or agitation. There is no statutory home-defence presumption. Shooting a knife-armed night intruder normally falls within § 13, but every killing is investigated and the homeowner is questioned as a suspect. I found no recent statistics on charging. |
| New Zealand | 7 | 7 | −0.5 | 6.5 | Crimes Act s48 justifies force that is reasonable in the circumstances as the defender believes them to be. There is no castle doctrine, no presumption for householders and no civil immunity. Police generally investigate a killing in the home, and a homeowner can be charged if the force looks excessive. Firearms law also does not accept self-defence as a reason to hold a gun, so using one may risk the licence. No recent conviction of a householder for killing an armed intruder was found. The August 2026 Crimes Amendment Act widened citizen's-arrest powers but left s48 unchanged. |
| Netherlands | 6 | 6 | 0 | 6.0 | Self-defence (noodweer, art. 41 Sr) is a full defence but is judged on proportionality and subsidiarity case by case; there is no home-defence presumption. A resident who kills an intruder is treated as a suspect and the death is investigated. Prosecutors usually drop the case when force against an armed intruder was necessary, but only after investigation; a few such cases have gone to trial. |
| Singapore | 6 | 6 | 0 | 6.0 | Penal Code s105(1)(b) lets a defender cause death against house-breaking between 7pm and 7am, and s102 lets them kill when they reasonably fear death or grievous hurt. Both are limited by s98: no more harm than is reasonably necessary, and no right of private defence where there is a reasonable opportunity to call the authorities. The defender bears the burden of proving private defence. Every killing is investigated as a possible culpable homicide, and the AGC decides whether to charge. No modern Singapore case of a householder killing an intruder was found. |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 6 | −0.5 | 5.9 | In a householder case, force is unreasonable only if 'grossly disproportionate' (Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s76(5A); upheld in R (Collins) v SSJ 2016), which is more protective than ordinary proportionality but with no presumption or immunity. In practice the householder is normally arrested on suspicion of murder and bailed while police and CPS investigate; e.g. Richard Osborn-Brooks (2018) was arrested and released, with no charge. Charges are rare where an armed intruder is shot inside the home at night. Scotland applies a similar common-law test. |
| Mexico | 8 | 6 | −1 | 5.8 | Federal Penal Code art. 15 IV presumes self-defence, 'salvo prueba en contrario', against anyone who tries to enter the home unlawfully, and state codes match. The Supreme Court upheld state reforms that expressly allow lethal force against home intruders (AI 1/2018 and 85/2017). In practice the homeowner is still detained and handed to prosecutors: in June 2026 police in San Pedro Cholula, Puebla, detained a homeowner whose burglar died, and the case went to the state fiscalía. |