Reply #34: Thanks...

[HiDemGunOwner]

I was well aware to what question you were responding. You seem to think that escape from the security and familarity of your home is a good choice is such situations and went so far as to call anyone who might choose to remain in a tactically superior position an "idiot."

Your "twofold" answer offers little clarity as to the "reasonable alternatives" afforded one when a criminal with ill intent breaks into your home. As is obvious in the first assault, the seemingly "reasonable alternative" of leaving the house resulted in more harm to the homeowner than if she had stayed and defended herself as she did in the second attack. The reason the Castle Doctrine has evolved (yeah, I know you disagree with that concept...) is because folks who propose this type of Monday morning quarterbacking are apt to impose their own misguided interpretations of "reasonable alternatives" based on the clarity gained after the circumstances are known. I am quite sure that had the first event not taken place, which clearly demonstrated the dangers associated with leaving your house under those circumstances, and the woman had simply stayed put and defended herself, they would have been severely critical of her not attempting such an escape. After all, it would have been reasonable to try to escape, right?