Your argument puts those two in mutually exclusive categories.
The castle doctrine is phrased in terms of illegality, with that being used to justify the use of measured force.
-- I think a lot of people just are having a knee jerk reaction to this holding. --
I agree.
-- The holding is not a carte blanche permit for cops to make illegal entry. --
I agree with that too. Indeed, it would quite unusual for a court to greenlight illegal conduct.
The effect of the ruling is, as I said a couple posts above, related to the availability of an affirmative defense instruction.
-- If they are off the reservation, then the Castle doctrine is still in effect. --
No, the holding is that a police offer can act illegally (while on duty), and the homeowner may NOT offer resistance. If he does, he may be charged with resisting, battery, etc., and may NOT assert a castle doctrine affirmative defense. Not even if the police are acting illegally. The plain language of the case says this.
-- This is not an unreasonable decision. --
I think a conclusion in that regard will be driven by the understanding one has, of the effect of the decision.
The castle doctrine does NOT give a homeowner a blanket right to resist, any more than this ruling gives the police a blanket license to act illegally. I think it's a bad decision, and it is a(nother) finger in the eye of the state legislature.
84% against