I fully support a person's right to be secure on their own property, but I feel most people misunderstand the scope of the Castle doctrine. The Castle doctrine is an exception to self defense laws to relax the requirements of self defense in certain limited situations, most notably in your own home. The Castle doctrine does not apply anywhere outside your home.
What I would like to see something of more general application, our common law allows a definition of self defense which is much broader. Prior to the Constitutional dispensation self defense was defined as (According to Burchell and Milton’s Principles of Criminal Law (2005), private self-defence is when “A person who is the victim of an unlawful attack upon person, property or other recognised legal interest may resort to force to repel such attack. Any harm or damage inflicted upon an aggressor in the court of such private defence is not unlawful. “
After the Constitutional dispensation self defense was defined much narrower to only cover attacks against the person.
Would ZACP push for the wider definition of self defense to be brought back?