[ossiblue]

IMO, it comes down to that legal catch-term, "reasonable." I both cases, the shooter set-up the break-in to entrap the burglars. In both cases, the shooters created an enticement that ordinarily wouldn't exist. In both cases, the shooters claimed "fear" yet they themselves created the circumstances where that "fear" would enter. In both cases, the shooters laid in wait for the sole purpose of shooting the intruders. These were not cases where a homeowner came upon an intruder and shot him. They were cases where the homeowner's sole purpose was to shoot an intruder and they created an unusual situation where an intruder would be more likely to strike their home.

Certainly not defending the burglars, but the castle law is still based on a reasonable action by the homeowner.