Can't wait for the nut-jobs to hear about this. Soon enough they'll be shooting people for something like, say, a can of beer. Oh, wait, that just happened in Houston.
Furthermore, I've been hearing numerous people (those without CHL but still carry illegally) stating that they will kill anyone who even attempts a very petty theft.
I don't know the particular story in Houston, and really don't care. People have shot/stabbed/clubbed each other to death for trivial things since the beginning of time with or without castle doctrine. The people who do so are nuts and no law for or against self defense is going to either inhibit or encourage them. Killers and nuts care little about the law, or for that matter what kind of tool is at hand.
If people start killing people for a "petty theft" they are still going to find themselves in a world of trouble. The whole point of this law is to give the law abiding person who DOES know the law the latitude to make snap judgments and react while there is still time to react.
Colorado has had the castle doctrine for "in home" since the 1980's (it wasn't a new thing in Florida ... just for outside the home). The only thing it's done is given those of us who do know the law an advantage if we ever suffer a home invasion.
Under non-castle doctrine laws, you have to try to figure out what that guy who just broke down your door at 2:00 a.m. is going to do. Is he armed? Is he headed for my kid's room? Is he just going to get the stereo? And while you're making these decisions he's only 10 feet away, and if he works up the courage to charge at you he may take that gun away or at least get a knife into your stomach before you can react.
With castle doctrine ... the law is on MY side and NOT the side of the 2:00 a.m. intruder. I don't have to be a tactical expert. I can use deadly force as soon as I see the need without fear of the consequences. I can keep my family safe.
Many states have had this law, like Colorado for better than 2 decades, and there haven't been people killed for "petty crimes." A few times the judges have been a little more "liberal" with the law than I would like (like allowing someone to shoot a BG who's already left the premises and is getting in his car) but if the law has to err (and it does, it's a human system) I would rather it err on the side of the victim rather than the criminal.
Castle doctrine is good for everyone.
