The Castle Doctrine

Florida governor Jeb Bush just signed off on a new self-defense law which "allows" an individual to respond to the threat of force with deadly force. This will cover everywhere an individual may roam, from their house, to their car, and to the street. Behind the law is the idea of the "Castle Doctrine", so named from the adage that a man's home is his castle, and may rightly defend it. Texas also has a similar law on the books. In my home state of North Carolina, you can only shoot someone if they're in the act of actually entering your house. Otherwise you are supposed to retreat from said bottom-dweller, if you can. If there are no means of escape (for you, not him!) you are allowed to protect your life. But if he's got my TV in his arms? I have to retreat. He's just standing there threatening to harm my family? I have to retreat. He's says going back out to his car to get his gun and shoot me with it? I have to retreat. But if I happen to catch him during that 20 second time frame when he's coming into the house, leg inside the window, I can blast it off. This is the kind of tit-for-tat deliberation that's par for the course in that ridiculous-looking legislative building in downtown Raleigh, but it's not the kind of calculus that's easily performed in your head when you see someone coming up your stairs at 3:30 AM. An image comes to mind of a group of Good Ole Boy state senators debating the semantics of what should and shouldn't be self-defense over jumbo hush puppies at the semiweekly lobbyist-funded barbeque.

The Florida measure passed 94-20, the opponents being Democratic senators from mostly urban areas. Their opposition is based on thier opinion that it will bring the streets back to a "wild west" mentality, which is a revealing comment. The implicit statement underneath is that pre-Castle Doctrine criminals shouldn't be feared (you can always run away!) but the now post-Castle Doctrine victims should be feared , because they might have a gun and actually use it. In the cold light of day their opposition boils down to the fact that the measure empowers the individual at the cost of the state; meanwhile they hope that paying lip service to irrational fears of general chaos seems to put them on the side of the "little guy", the favorite Democrat hollow man casually used to bloat the size of the nanny state. At any rate I suppose they can still take a bullet in their own homes if only to underline the fact that they're taking one for the team.