But what David says cannot be ignored:

For one thing, people misunderstand the Castle Doctrine. It is not a license to kill. It is a license to protect, yes, but not kill for some offense which does not threaten life or even rise to the need to protect home or vehicle.
The Castle Doctrine was little more than former Sen. Charlie Ross trying to put a tough-as-nails feather in his cap for his then-yet-to-happen run for lieutenant governor.

It seems all the Castle Doctrine left us with was a two-time loser in Ross (see here and here) and what could be years of confusion and despair, as is the case in this incident. (Let’s not forget, however, that the shooter allegedly followed the would-be robber outside and shot him in his car. That should offer some perspective here.)

Mind you, what happened in the store is not Charlie Ross’ fault. I would never intimate such a thing, as should no one else. But that doesn’t change David’s point:

At the same time, I thought the Mississippi Legislature’s approval of the so-called Castle Doctrine was a mistake because it would be misunderstood, wrongly interpretted and result in tragedy. We now have an example of what I feared.

Thanks, Charlie.

Cotton Mouth Blog