OuTcAsT:
If you could provide some useful information instead of advising to get more information I would appreciate it.
I agree my original explanation was a little simplistic, but I'd still like your expert opinion on why it is incorrect.
As I stated, under the common law you can use force in self-defense when you reasonably believed that such force was necessary to protect yourself from the imminent use of unlawful force by another person. A person may not use deadly physical force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death. Self defense was an affirmative defense under the common law, meaning that the defendant had to prove that his acts were lawful by a preponderance of the evidence; the government did not have to prove that the defendant acted unlawfully beyond a reasonable doubt. By placing the burden on the defendant, it was up to the person acting in self defense to prove their use of lethal force was justified.
In your view is this correct? It is not clear from you post what you claim is not correct.
Of course not all states follow the common law anymore. For example, some states impose a duty to retreat (except in the home).
What the Castle Doctrine does, as I understand it, is that it turns the common law presumptions on their head in the home. Instead of the defendant having to prove that he acted lawfully when using lethal force, the defendant's actions are now presumed to be lawful when the bad guy entered the home unlawfully. A presumption can be rebutted, but the burden of proof is now on the government.
Here is Florida's Castle Law, which I believe was the first in the nation:
Florida:
A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if [t]he person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle ....
Here is my state's law:
Utah:
The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.
These laws are fairly typical, although some are weaker.
Basically, when someone unlawfully enters a home the presumption is now that the use of lethal force was lawful. Intead of the defendant having to prove that lethal force was justified, the government now has to prove that it was not.
Do you view this as incorrect? Again, I can't tell from your posts what you think is wrong.
If I have something wrong here, please identify what it is.