Drunken college student, 3x the legal limit, wanders into a home and goes into the owner's bedroom, ignoring numerous warnings that they had a gun, and keeps heading towards them. Home owners shoot her, striking her in the hip.
This is a clear case of Castle Doctrine. There was NO opportunity for the homeowners to 'retreat' (even though under CO law they had no duty to), w/ her continuing to come towards the homeowners after multiple warnings, that is a clear threat.
So now my question, will the anti-gun advocates, especially Ladd Everitt of the CSGV, support this? It fits all the myriad restrictions and requirements they demand.
Or will they come up w/ some other lame qualifier or excuse why this wasn't 'justified'?
I think we all know the answer.