You obviously missed post #43.
Perhaps you should read it.
“You obviously missed post #43.”
You obviously miss my point. The new amendment to the law describes the ability to use force to “protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.”
The map (which is interesting mix of all kinds of things) certainly shows some pretty awful things over a ten year spread. But that only means something if you know how many times it was performed. By the way, there were a lot of blue circles (dead cops) on the map. Expect more if they can be met by deadly force because “the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.”
Because, depending on the stability, the lethality, the mental capacity, alertness and the intent of the one who is doing the “judgement” on what is “construed”, that could make a HUGE pile of bodies both intentional and unintentional, on both sides.
Arguing for this is like arguing for legalizing drugs. Let’s let what can already be a bad situation worse because we can’t think of any other way out of it and it’s so awful and bad now, we can’t just sit here, we have TO DO something.
“In turn, the National Rifle Association lobbied for an amendment to the Castle Doctrine to ensure that residents were protected from officers that abuse the law to grant themselves entry into private space.”
A little better, but a much narrower construct, don’t you think? It would do far more to address the issue you raised.