Distinguish between defense of habitation and defense of property

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

In general, a person is entitled to use nondeadlyforce to protect his or her possession of property. No more force may be used than is necessary to defend one's possessory interest in property. Deadly force cannot be used in defense of property. Even if deadly force is the onlyoption available, it cannot be used in defense of property. However, deadly force may be justifiable if a defense-of-property situation evolves into a self defense or defense of others situation. People are given considerably more latitude to protect their places of habitation—even with deadly force. At common law, people were permitted to use deadly force whenever it was necessary to prevent someone from unlawfully entering the dwelling. The defense could be invoked even if the intruder was unarmed and posed no threat to the dweller. As time went on, restrictions were imposed governing the defense of habitation. One approach is to limit the use of deadly force to situations in which the intruder not only enters unlawfully but also intends to injure or harm an occupant, or commit a felony therein. Some jurisdictions have restricted defense of habitation even further, limiting it to situations in which either the dweller's life is threatened or a forcible felony, not just any felony, is likely to be committed.