I am re-posting this in light of George’s comment below (today) and I am re-posting the story of my own limited experience with guns below Con’s article. John
No matter what the situation or location “deadly physical force cannot be used UNLESS the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.” [emphasis mine]
The ‘belief’ must be ‘reasonable’ as measured by ‘the prudent person standard’ and NOT merely an actual belief that is not ‘reasonable’. That is – Would a prudent person consider the belief to be reasonable? It is not enough that the person has the belief; it must be reasonable using a relatively objective standard.
The Castle Doctrine causes much confusion because it eliminates the ‘legal duty to flee, if and only if one can do so in complete safety’. When in one’s home, there is no duty to flee. There is absolutely no ‘restricting weaker citizens from protecting themselves’.
Further, in one’s home (and in defense even of Property), the homeowner “is justified in using reasonable physical force when and to the extent he reasonably believes it to be necessary to stop another from trespassing or attempting to trespass in or upon it.” That force must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat – if the threat is merely theft of property, the force is reasonable only to the extent necessary to prevent such theft, but the use of Deadly Force ALWAYS has the requirement that “the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.”
That is, you cannot kill someone for merely breaking in or attempting theft without that crucial requirement of imminent, deadly force (though many argue that it is a reasonable belief solely by virtue of the fact of the break-in, which they argue causes them to be in reasonable fear of their life).
That is The Law in CT (See Below). One reason the so-called “Stand Your Ground” Doctrine is so controversial is because it ostensibly allows someone to STILL use Deadly Force even though they can flee in absolute safety (thus, the argument that absent SYG there would be danger from turning one’s back on the criminal).
So regarding Stand Your Ground, it stands to reason: Why in the world would someone choose to take a life when they can avoid doing so in complete safety? What reasons are there to do so? To have the freedom to perform summary execution on the street without any Due Process? To take it upon one’s self to kill a criminal who may perpetrate violent crimes in the future? None of these are the responsibility of a Citizen and are the sole purview of a professional Law Enforcement Officer.