Since you conveniently (?) closed this thread, Bells, I thought I'd give you a chance to actually get around to supporting your own claims: "Laws exist in many States and Counties in the US, which allow one to stand one's ground (altered from being required to retreat from threats or harm) and the Castle Doctrine, which has basically been extended to amount to one's immediate environment being one's castle against not just direct threat, but perceived threat.. The perceived threat part of it is a recent addition. In the past, you could not pull out your gun unless you were directly threatened. Now the law allows one to shoot another if one merely perceives a threat. This is established law in around 30 or so States of the US. This is not up for dispute at present. We all agree on this, yes?.. Now, what this means is that if someone perceives a threat, they can shoot that person. The high majority of the time, they face no charges for their actions. So in the case I linked much earlier in the thread, a brown skinned minority walking his dog, was nearly hit by a car in a drive through driveway. He raised his arms up, one hand was holding a leash. The driver of the truck that nearly hit him pulled out a gun and shot him and killed him because he felt threatened. That was legal and the shooter faced no charges. He was not arrested or detained. This is legal in many parts of the State. What is now blatantly obvious from these laws is that minorities are being killed by white people who merely have to perceive them as a threat and more often than not, they are not being charged for it. This is entirely legal." - http://www.sciforums.com/goto/post?id=3438857#post-3438857 If these laws exist in "around 30 or so States", it shouldn't be too hard for you to cite the actual laws. The problem is that it looks like you've completely misunderstood such laws. The deadly use of force in self-defense is always legally risky. This is why there are criteria that must be met to justify a good shoot. It must be an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death from a source that has ability (disproportional force, whether due to weapon, relative physical build, or numbers), opportunity (free of obstacle relative to the weapon), and apparent intent (menacingly approaching, disregarding any command to stop). If any of these three do not obtain, it is not an immediate threat and not a justified shoot. And before you attempt to move the goalpost away from civilian law (stand your ground, etc.), police often arrive at a scene under heightened circumstances, so don't pretend that the same criteria apply.