The Castle Doctrine

There's an article from the AP discussing the rise of self-defense related shootings across the country:  

Self-defense slayings against intruders on the rise | Front page | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

The first point the article is the use of the term "slaying" rather than shooting makes indicates the journalist thinks that self-defense is wrong.  The NRA is also blamed in this article for the rise in slayings do to the aggressive nature of the rollout in 33 states of the doctrine.

To be clear the Castle Doctrine only establishes that an individual does not have a duty to retreat before using deadly force in their home or vehicle.  In other words, if criminal breaks into a home, the home owner doesn't have an obligation to attempt to flee the home before shooting the criminal intruder.  In Mississippi the law has been extended to include businesses.

The Cases sited in the article:

1. A convenience store clerk chased an unarmed man down after he alledgedly stole a case of beer.  The clerk shot the man as he was leaving in his truck.  The man has been indicted by a grand jury. (Jackson, Ms)
2. A convenience store clerk ran after an armed robber and shot him in the back outside the store.  The clerk was neither charged or indicted by the grand jury.  (Jackson, Ms)
3. A man who shot an intruder climbing through a window in his home.  He was neither charged nor indicted. (San Antonio, Tx)
4. A man who shot another man through his front door.  The man who was shot was beating on his door and the home owner feared for his life. (Lexington, Ky)
5. A woman shot an ex-boyfriend who climbed through the window of her home.  She was not arrested but was indicted by the coroner's jury.  It is reckoned that the jury did not understand the Castle Doctrine law that had recently been passed. (Adair County, Mo)
6. Joe Horn, a neighbor who shot and killed two unarmed robbers in the back in his neighbors front yard.  This story received nation-wide headlines and established legal basis for the self-defense from prosecution under the Castle Doctrine.  Mr. Horn was neither arrested or indicted. (Pasadena, Tx)

The article makes it seem as though home owners are callous murderers for defending their lives.  It is the criminal who sought to create the scenario in which their death occurs.  Home-owners and store clerks have a right to life. 

The journalist who wrote this article attempts to lump the store shooting of the unarmed beer thief into the same category as the other cases, but glances over the fact that the store clerk will now have to prove self-defense in a court of law.  He hasn't gotten away free.  He's been indicted on murder charges.  And that's where the gray-area is.  If the thief is in his vehicle and is unarmed, can you shoot him?  I certainly wouldn't have, but as Surinder Singh puts it "For them, it's a case of beer. For us, it's our property. That person didn't have respect for his life. He put his life against one case of beer."

I think the Castle Doctrine is an excellent self-defense clause for individuals who take responsibility for their own safety.  If you read the article you will see that the journalist doesn't think so.  I guess she'll wait for the police to rescue him from a home-intruder at 3 o'clock in the morning.