This is such a disturbing story. How can you have a system that doesn't allow you to defend yourself in your own home?
In the most simplistic sense, who would disagree with defending yourself in your own home? Only the most radical pacifist. The problem is that real life is not so simple. Most unlawful entries aren't kill-or-be-killed home invasions. Statistically they are almost non-existent (not that the statistics are comforting if it happens to you, of course). What's a lot more common is a quick smash of a window, or poke in through and unlocked door, and someone grabs a purse or a laptop or something and takes off.
It's really, really hard for most people to think that there is equity in a dumb 16-year-old kid, or an addled 30-year-old crackhead, or a drunk or mentally ill person who doesn't even realize what they're doing, to have their skull shattered by a twelve gauge based only on the fact that they crossed your threshold. This stuff happens all the time, so the system does have to closely examine these instances and decide if it was *really* self-defense or if someone shot first and asked questions later. Hell, there are even instance where people shot someone who was poking around their front gate on the street and then dragged them inside to claim the "castle" defense.
It's not nearly so simple as people want it to be, like everything in the real world.
(For the record, I've lived through not only burglaries and robberies, but a period of keeping a handgun on top of the fridge until we were able to move because we were being specifically targeted by a neighbor with a firearm. So I'm not unsympathetic. But nobody, imo, has the right to be judge, jury, and executioner unless there is clearly an immediate threat to their safety. Once you go down that road, it's not long before someone is going to find a "good" reason to cap
your ass.)
