> In many US jurisdictions, not generally the case. The ones with a strong "castle doctrine" are notable because this is not the norm.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement, it's actually the other way around. Most US states have a castle doctrine law of varying strength. Even the "gun-unfriendly" states like NJ, NY, and CA.
If you weren't the initial aggressor, and you are in your home with a licensed/legal firearm, you may shoot an intruder. Duty to retreat doesn't apply to your house...which makes perfect sense.
> Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement, it's actually the other way around.
You're misunderstanding my statement. And/or considering only the duty to retreat and not the threat aspect of self-defense.
> Most US states have a castle doctrine law of varying strength.
Right, key part being "of varying strength"; but, AFAIK, very few have a strong castle doctrine law that would make "you can shoot an intruder without liability" generally true; IIRC, the most common version is the very weak form where being in your home basically just eliminates the obligation to flee if able in preference to using deadly force in self defense, but does not have an effect on the level of threat (both subjective and objective) which must be posed before using deadly force.
> If you weren't the initial aggressor, and you are in your home with a licensed/legal firearm, you may shoot an intruder.
Generally, "licensed/legal firearm" is irrelevant to self-defense analysis (whether in the home or otherwise).
Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement, it's actually the other way around. Most US states have a castle doctrine law of varying strength. Even the "gun-unfriendly" states like NJ, NY, and CA.
If you weren't the initial aggressor, and you are in your home with a licensed/legal firearm, you may shoot an intruder. Duty to retreat doesn't apply to your house...which makes perfect sense.