[OldMarksman]

An "Innocent" wouldn't have broken into your house in the first place. I can't justify "innocent" and "break in". Should someone should break into my home when I'm inside minding my own business, I'd surely assume he was intending to do me or my family harm in one fashion or another.

Good point indeed. Perhaps expanding on it would be worth doing. This is a lay discussion.

That ("I'd surely assume he was intending to do me or my family harm...") is one of the two main concepts behind castle laws in general.

Let's get the other one out of the way first: retreat. Not too long ago, a man broke into the abode of a Massachusetts woman and her child. She defended herself with a heavy old gum-ball dispenser and ended up getting charged because she did not attempt to retreat. I do not know the outcome. I'd move to another state.

The second is presumption of imminent danger. I've been told that before the castle law was enacted where I live, residents sometimes had to provide evidence that the perp actually presented an imminent threat. But as you say, if he has breached your door or smashed through your window at night, you can reasonably assume that he is not there to measure the drapes!

But it's not always crystal clear: there can be an innocent break in (more later), and the laws vary from state to state.

Not only do the written laws vary, but so do the real meanings--meanings determined from the context of the law in the overall legal fabric, and from the case law. It's never a good idea for any layman to rely on what he thinks the law says.

Here's a case in point: where I live, it says right in the law that I can use deadly force if someone enters my domicile or automobile uninvited, refuses to leave, or attempts to remain. It actually says "unlawfully" but that's defined elsewhere. For a private residence, it says that means "uninvited".

That's what it says. Would I rely on that? Not for a second. Why? Let's look at some state by state variations first. In both Florida, and Texas, the law provides the resident with the presumption that the entry (unlawful and with force in both cases--not mentioned in the law in my state) provides reason for belief that great harm is imminent. Good law, in my view. But as discussed in a prior post, that presumption can be rebutted, should there be reason or a basis. Says so in the laws in both places. The absence of such wording in the laws of some other states may not mean that the same thing will not apply.

In Colorado, the perp must have entered the house. Some guy who had the wrong house stuck his arm through the window to open the lock (innocent by any standard) and the resident killed him. The resident was not charged; part of the decedent's body had been in the house, and other circumstance would seem to have provided basis for reasonable fear. Of course, a later authority can always bring charges.

Oregon doesn't have a "castle law" in the code, but it is embodied in case law. A fellow came home to find a man unlawfully in his house and he shot the guy. He was convicted of manslaughter.

So, these laws vary a lot, and most of them are fairly new. That means that in some states the relevant case law has yet to be handed down. I don't know about you, but I don't want that to be done as the result of something I've done. I would be ruined even if not convicted. I have neither the money nor the remaining years left. So, what will I do when someone comes in "uninvited"? I'll act decisively when and only when I see no alternative.

Complicated? Well, there are some reasons why there's a strong--very strong--lobby working on a nation wide basis and contending that castle laws do nothing but legalize murder. One is the way the laws are written in some places; ours almost begs to be read that way. Another is because of the way some very unfortunate things have happened, such as the tragedies in Colorado and Oregon--not to judge the CO resident harshly here. A lot of folks use the Joe Horn case in Texas as ammunition, but it had nothing to do with the ''castle doctrine" clause in the Texas law.

And there's another reason--the "I'll blow 'em away" mentality often stated in various places, including this thread, does not help the cause at all.

The idea that a man's home is his castle was never meant to grant upon him the function of judge, jury, and lord high executioner all in one. Your shots should be your last resort.

Pardon the length of the reply, but it's a very important subject.

By the way, I've had three break ins while at home, defended myself with a gun in each instance (without firing), and like the OP, I shook for a long time after each.