"The law, as stated above, clearly says that the homeowner, not a jury, is to decide if a crime was being committed."
So let's say I invite you over to my house, then when you step across the threshold, I shoot you dead, then claim you were breaking in.
In your view, I get to decide if a crime is being committed by you. In fact, you claim I can't even be arrested.
See any problems with that?
In criminal law, the judge decides matters of law. The jury decides matters of fact.
In this case, the shooter killed someone. That constitutes the crime of 'murder' or 'homicide', if done intentionally, or manslaughter (if the intent was not to kill).
Now under the new law, the shooter can claim the defense of self-defense. Like any other defense, it is the jury's right and duty to decide if the accused is guilty or not.
One part of the law does say as follows:
"(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1) of this section, but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful."
So you can indeed be arrested if the agency thinks there is probable cause you were not really defending your 'castle'.
I don't know a LOT about criminal law, but there are some real Grade-A wingnuts screaming on this thread already who clearly don't know ANYTHING (and don't care).
--R.
But that doesn't make any sense. Is that to say that in other cases police can arrest someone absent probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. That doesn't seem right.