Actually, as a Brit, this thread really is amusing me, and there is a sence in which, given the context, I DO acgree with the 'shoot first and ask questions later' approch, given that there is a chance that whoever broke into the home could have a gun and could be willing to use violance in order to fund his next drug fix.
However, all the people who are supporting 'shoot-to-kill' are opting for a first strike, no matter who or what the intruder may be.
What if said intruder was actually your own son, who lost his key and, stoned, fell while trying to climb into a window. It's dark, you see a shadow in the side of the room and blast away. Oooops, you just blew your own sons head off since, apparently, just pointing a gun at someone and shouting at them isn't enough of a show of force to satisfy bush-land.
As for the idea of it being cowardly NOT to shoot someone in the back, hahahahahahhahshdaslk;hdklsahdlsahdsha.