Deerfield, NY -- A homeowner accused of shooting to death two burglars at his rural Oneida County home was likely justified to use deadly force based on two different state laws, the district attorney and a longtime criminal lawyer agreed.

Ronald Stolarczyk, 64, was inside his home Tuesday at 6110 Walker Road when he shot to death two burglars, who he says came toward him after he yelled at them to leave, authorities said.

Stolarczyk’s lawyer, Mark Wolber, told Syracuse.com | The Post-Standard his client was “scared to death and thought he was going to die.”

That can be considered a legitimate reason to use deadly force under New York state law. But there’s another legal reason to kill someone: in defense of your house -- known for ages as the “Castle doctrine.”

Killed in Tuesday’s shooting were Patricia Anne Talerico, 57, and her nephew, Nicholas A. Talerico, 27, of Utica.

Nicholas Talerico appears to have previously broken into Stolarczyk’s residence, a dilapidated structure with no electricity or running water, authorities said, based on stolen items recovered from the younger Talerico’s apartment after his death.

The Talericos may not have realized the house was occupied when they entered Tuesday, Oneida County DA Scott McNamara said.

McNamara said the homicide investigation is continuing, but that the homeowner’s actions to shoot the two people so far appear to be justified. Nicholas Talerico was shot in the chest, the DA said, but he was still waiting for the autopsy of Patricia Anne Talerico to see where she was shot.

Stolarczyk was separately charged with illegal weapon possession because prosecutors say he had not licensed the loaded handgun, which was originally purchased by his late father. That illegal gun charge has nothing to do with whether the shootings were justified.

Under law, there are two justifiable reasons to kill someone:

If you are in danger of being seriously injured or killed by that person, or

If you are in your own home and are trying to stop a burglary (or arson) in progress.

Stolarczyk would appear justified under either defense, McNamara and longtime Central New York lawyer Nicholas DeMartino indicated.

But there’s also a key real-world element to such a defense: your actions must be reasonable.

The “reasonableness standard” is determined on a case-by-case basis. That means that it’s typically up to grand juries or trial juries to determine if someone’s actions were reasonable, said DeMartino, a former local prosecutor, judge, assistant state attorney general and current defense lawyer. He’s not working on the Oneida County case.

What’s not reasonable?

You can’t shoot a drunk person who accidentally stumbles onto your porch, DeMartino said as example.

If you hear an intruder in your garage, you can’t go out there and shoot that person, McNamara added.

You also can’t shoot an intruder who is retreating.

However, a homeowner has no duty to retreat, either, inside his or her own home. (State law requires someone outside of the home to retreat, if possible, from an attacker.)

Lots of gray area

Because self-defense cases are so fact-specific, the details matter, DeMartino said.

Where in the body is the intruder shot? (Shooting someone in the back is probably not reasonable; in the front might be.) Are there warnings beforehand? How big or threatening is the intruder? How aggressive?

In reality, a homeowner is likely justified in shooting an intruder in his or her house who acts threateningly, DeMartino said.

Also key is how danger is determined: it’s what the shooter reasonably believes at the second he or she pulls the trigger. If the intruder appears to have a weapon, but it later turns out to be a cell phone, for example, the initial appearance is what counts.

In this shooting, the fact the two intruders were not armed does not mean that the homeowner wasn’t in fear of mortal danger at the second he pulled the trigger, DeMartino said.

“In this case, the homeowner was in his own home,” McNamara said. “The two came up the stairs and he yelled at them to leave. They didn’t, so he shot them. So it seems justifiable...although until the autopsy comes back it can’t be determined for sure. If the victim was shot in the back four times that’s a game changer.”

Juries sympathetic to self-defense

Recent Onondaga County juries have shown that self-defense -- even outside someone’s residence -- is often a winning argument in homicide cases. Consider:

A war vet shot and killed his romantic rival in Armory Square after the unarmed victim attacked him following an altercation in a bar. A jury found the shooter justified.

Two men were acquitted of manslaughter in the death of a 300-pound, drunken, drugged up man who had been picking fights at a bar and later reengaged them in a fight on the Onondaga Nation. Defense lawyers -- including DeMartino for one of the men -- argued that they were defending themselves and hadn’t actually caused deadly injuries.

Recently, a man was acquitted of manslaughter for stabbing another man during an altercation over a woman outside a residence. The victim was armed with a knife himself and the jury found the fatal stabbing justified.

Still ongoing is the case of a Cicero teacher who shot to death his brother-in-law after a night of drunken fighting inside the teacher’s house. The unarmed victim left the residence and was walking back in when the teacher shot him repeatedly with a rifle. A Rochester appellate court recently suggested that the teacher had a good self-defense case: the teacher was protecting his property from an unwanted intruder who planned to assault him.

What’s the law read?

State law on this topic is covered under Article 35 of the penal code. The relevant portions, shortened for clarity, are:

Article 35.15: Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.

Subsection 2: A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person... unless (t)he actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force... (T)he actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is... in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor.

Article 35.20: Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary.

Subsection 3: A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.