The Glade 4.0

So killing a kid in a garage after you've left it open makes you a sociopath, but killing one in the womb after you left it open is an acceptable social view?

Police say they want to know whether a Montana man was stoned or drunk when he fatally shot a German exchange student.
Homeowner Markus Kaarma, 29, is accused of setting a trap in his Missoula garage to lure in would-be burglars so he could unleash deadly force — after growing frustrated by two recent robberies and an alleged lack of law enforcement.

Police think the gunman might "have been impaired by alcohol, dangerous drugs, other drugs, intoxicating substances or a combination of the above, at the time of the incident," according to a newly published court document.
A judge granted the warrant for a drug test for any intoxicants that could be in Kaarma's system from the time he killed Diren Dede, 17, on April 27, authorities said. Officers say they found a glass jar of pot in Kaarma's house the day of the shooting.
Authorities will likely not release the results until the investigation is over.

Prosecutors say that Kaarma and his girlfriend, Janelle Pflager, set up sensors and a video monitor — and intentionally left the door open to bait a criminal — the night of the shooting.
He is charged with deliberate homicide.
Kaarma rejects the allegations. He said that he left the door open to air out his garage after he and his girlfriend smoked cigarettes.

Actually, LK, the law backs you up on this entirely. Deliberately trying to lure someone into committing a crime against you so you can kill them negates your ability to claim self-defense and constitutes premeditated murder. Khross may think that's wrong, but he's the one making an exclusively moral, rather than a legal, argument.

Under what statute or case is this found? Entrapment maybe, but that applies to the police.

that's A case but not the case I'm looking for.

What I mean, is a case where a legal principle was established that luring someone into committing a crime removed your ability to defend yourself against them; something from an appellate or supreme court or something like that.

I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. The booby-trap cases LK mentioned would likely be relevant, as would various precedents involving provocation and self-defense claims. Also, even in castle doctrine cases, the homeowner pulling the trigger still has to show that the shooting was reasonable and necessary, and I'd bet my left you-know-what that attempting to lure the criminal in the first place would negate that in most cases. At the very least, luring would certainly go to intent/premeditation. Here's a case that a quick Google turned up - Byron David Smith - but I can't really vouch for it or dig deeper at the moment, as (sadly), I'm at work.

A number of aspects of the case were noted by police as being inconsistent with self-defense. Smith moved his truck earlier in the day. He claimed it was in order to clean his garage. Prosecutors argued at his trial that it was an attempt to make the house look abandoned in order to lure the burglars into his home.

If there's no controlling case, then it can't be categorically stated. Common Law principles have some weight, but they aren't ironclad or sacred.