I was happy to find that these stories are urban legends. While much is written on the internet about them, there is not one factual or court referenced account to be found. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of absurd law suits out there, but this particular category is false.
However, during the process of my investigation I came across The Castle Law and its opposition. This law gives a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend their residence “castle“, (or in some states) car, work place, and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. State law varies with respect to specific instances in which The Castle Law can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used. In addition, many states have a "Stand-Your-Ground clause", which provides immunity from any lawsuit filed by the assailant for any injury resulting from the a person using The Castle Law to defend themselves. This is where much of the controversy exist. Some states have a no duty to retreat policy which relieves the homeowner from any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can use deadly force.
Those who oppose The Castle Law say it will cause unnecessary killing, wrongful killing, and killing of “petty thieves.” I hate the term petty thieves. First of all, what act of thievery is petty to the person being robbed? Second, if someone stole my deceased grandfathers dime store pocket watch it would be petty theft, but I would honestly rather them steal my car. Those opposing the law have also nick named it the “license to kill law.” Whereas, advocates of the law praise the law for allowing them to defend themselves against criminals. The internet is full of news articles both praising The Castle Law and defaming it based on horror stories. You can find stories about teenagers breaking into homes and getting fatally shot while supposedly trying to flee. One of the anti Castle Law sites has a testimonial from the mother of a nineteen year old who was shot while robbing a home and is since paralyzed from the neck down. Although, she failed to explain in her story what her beloved son was doing robbing the person who shot him. On the other hand, you can also find stories of victims that hesitated to draw a weapon being beaten to their weapon and not having the chance to defend themselves or people who brandished weapons, but hesitated to use them having their weapon taken from them and turned on them.
I have no problem supporting The Castle Law in full. If someone comes into my home uninvited they best be prepared for the consequences. I do not blame anyone for not fleeing from their own home, but I especially will shot first and ask questions latter. With a handicapped child in my home I do not have the option of fleeing nor the leisure to hesitate and find out if they are there to hurt me or rob me. I think a large part of why opposing parties hate this law is simple deduction from responsibility. These days no one wants to take personal responsibility for their actions and accept that there are consequences to every action. If you speed…you may get a ticket. If you smoke….you may get cancer. If you have unprotected sex…you may get pregnant. If you break into a persons home…you may get shot. So, if you don't want to get shot….don't break into someone's home. However, as the internet proves, there are people out there willing to give more rights to the criminal than the victim and are working to overturn The Castle Law.
