Castile Doctrine
To address comments by the WI BAR Association, as a former WI resident and UT CFP Instructor, I offer the following for consideration by this forum:
Under Utah Castle Doctrine Law, a person is justified in using deadly force in defense of persons, but not property. However, in UT, a person is justified in using deadly force to prevent the commission of a forcible felony within that person's residence or in any place a person has the legal right to be. (Burglary to a person's residence when any other person is also present is a forcible felony in UT.) Thus, UT Law assumes that anyone illegally entering a person's residence is doing so to, at the very least, with the intent to commit a forcible felony and to perhaps also commit aggravated assault, rape, manslaughter, or murder. And, UT Castle Doctrine Law defining the defense of a person's residence when another person is present extends to allow the use of deadly force to prevent an unwanted person attempting to enter a residence in a "violent, surreptitious, or stealthy manner". Thus, in UT, the guy trying to pry open your front door is subject to being shot through the door.
Burglary to occupied dwellings and assault to home occupants during burglary to an occupied dwelling really fell off after that law passed. Being a burglar to an occupied dwelling in UT is a very hazardous occupation and few criminals are willing to "chance it". And, that is as it should be in Wisconsin as well.
And in the many years that the UT Castle Doctrine law has been in effect, there have been no attempts by persons to use the letter of the law to murder another person. Just like Wisconsin is naive to concealed carry, Wisconsin is also naive to Castle Doctrine. The Wisconsin Bar Association is creating hypothetical boogey-men in an attempt to give criminals an edge and to further the careers of tort lawyers.