[trndobrd]

First, the reporter completely misrepresents the Missouri Castle Doctrine law. It does NOT "allow the use of deadly force to defend property." It makes clear that a person does not have to retreat from a "dwelling, residence or vehicle" if they believe physical force is required to protect himself.* Basically, it provides a protection against prosecution based on the theory that you should have tried to escape from your home instead of shooting the robber. There is no 'Castle Doctrine" defense in this case.

Second, as DJ mentioned, this is just a plain old self defense case. Would a 'reasonable person' have felt a threat of death or severe bodily harm by a couple drunk Yahoos throwing rocks?





2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury,[ rape, sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or arson] or any forcible felony; or

(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person.

3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining.