"Prosecutors felt it would make it easier for defendants to beat a murder rap, in some cases impossible to convict cases involving a wrongful death, mistaken identity or gang members, who might use the defense as justification to shoot an alleged attacker," Dukes said."
So... I thought MAYBE this is an article which may attempt to broaden the analysis of the "no need to justify traveling" modification. By printing quotes like the one above, it just seems to be another misleading Castle Doctrine bashing. Why not call it the "shoot 'em in the back ask questions later law" like some other pinheads do!
I read the quote taken from the article above and do not see how this lends any journalistic support to the supposed topic. To even think that carrying in your vehicle is a justifiable defense against shooting someone does not make sense. Now I think I know what they are trying to do here. They are giving the article a less than emotionally charged headline and proceeding to lace it with less than stellar journalism to accomplish the affect it obviously has on me! I knew it! They are after me!
