A common urban legend says that if you shoot an intruder in your home you had better put a knife in his hand to reinforce your claim of self-defense. Mythical sensationalism it may be, but like most legends it has some basis in fact and to some extent many believe it to be sound advice.

It does seem to have merit when one considers the preferential treatment given to lawbreakers. In the majority of the states – New York included - you cannot use deadly force to protect yourself, your family or your property unless you make some accommodations for the invader. Even though the perp obviously does not have your best interests in mind, you must afford him a considerable level of respect and safety with your "duty to retreat".

Duty to retreat laws (or standard-setting court rulings) require that the homeowner prior to exerting any sort of force, deadly or otherwise, must do everything in his or her power to avoid conflict. Basically, the clause demands that the victim forgo acts of survival by not reacting immediately to the intruder’s intent to harm. The homeowner must at first resort to cowardice by seeking retreat and then the situation must escalate to the point that the courts see "reasonable" belief that injury and death could occur and then, and only then, can the resident take up the measures necessary to suppress the attacker.

Such laws put all the power into the hands of the thug and strip the victim of natural rights which include the ability to survive. The fact that the attacked cannot draw an arm until the situation has reached its critical mass is utterly absurd. Those seconds or minutes associated with having to hide from a criminal can be the difference-maker for the physical safety, sexual safety, or even life itself of the person whose home or apartment has been invaded. Dropping your defenses puts the one on offense at the supreme advantage.

Realistically, a law-abiding citizen has no understanding of what’s going through the mind of an intruder and really has no obligation to. The victim needs only to know that criminals are evil and if they can break one law they can sure break another, even taking your life. Many governments see it otherwise. They want you to wrongly believe that the individual who was deranged enough to commit the initial crime of breaking into your abode really has no intent to harm you personally – he only wants your property - so you really shouldn’t harm him either. How considerate.

Thankfully, the illogical and unrealistic optimism of the duty to retreat is seeing its demise across the nation. In 2005 Florida passed the nation’s first "Castle Doctrine" and many states have followed with similar legislation which is sometimes called a "stand your ground" bill. These much-needed laws say that you have the right to protect your "castle", which in all such states is your home while in some states it also includes automobiles and offices. It casts aside the duty to retreat and allows the homeowner to make an immediate decision to protect property and life. This is because the Castle Doctrine rightly presumes that an individual forcefully and illegally entering one’s domain is intent on doing so using all means possible, which include force and violence. The Castle Doctrine does not demand that the homeowner show beyond the shadow of a doubt that the evildoer was intent on harming anyone within the premises. Illegal behavior itself is suspicion enough.

This absolves the homeowner of any wrongdoing were he to pull the trigger. The protective homeowner is excluded from criminal prosecution and also from civil lawsuits, so all bases are covered. The victim of the home invasion – not the aggressor - comes out on top, living to see another day and being free of prosecution, just as it should be.

Thanks to efforts by the National Rifle Association and other constitutionalists the Castle Doctrine is spreading like wildfire across the United States. In the two years since Florida’s bold move, 18 other states have followed suit. Let us hope that some day soon New York State picks up the ball and runs with it, because right now, if you chose to protect your castle and those in it, you, not the perpetrator, would be identified as the criminal. There’s something very, very wrong with that.