Defense Attorneys are going to use whatever they can in an attempt to get not guilty verdicts for their clients; that's their job. Is "castle" being "abused"? The article only cited 2 instances, and said nothing on the order of "...these are only two of the thousands of instances...", so it seems to me to be a non-issue. In the first instance mentioned, the defendant (who happened to be a drug dealer) was in his vehicle. The person that was shot and killed broke the defendant's car's window in an attempt to get into the car. I don't know if the defendant was dealing drugs from his vehicle. Assuming he wasn't, the shooting seems, to me, to be justified. Even assuming he was dealing drugs from his car, which is illegal, could he still not fear for his life and be allowed to protect himself? I am not an attorney, so I can't answer that. In the other instance, a man broke into a house and was stabbed to death. The article mentions nothing about drugs. I don't see any problem there. If 'castle' happens to be used in a specious manner, would a D.A. not be savvy enough to be able to shoot holes (no pun intended) through that tactic? The rights of the homeowner/victim MUST outweigh the occasional misuse of 'castle'. * NOTE: I put 'castle' in quotes because 'castle' is a marketing term, not a legal term. It is a package of civil and criminal reforms under a heading that states refer to as Castle Doctrine. Ohio's specific version of Castle Doctrine made two broad changes, one civil and one criminal. The civil reform is not self-defense related and is easy to understand and simple to summarize: If you are harmed while you are committing a crime, whether or not you are charged with that crime, you have no civil cause of action against anyone for the harm you suffered. In other words, if you are committing a crime and get hurt, it is your own damn fault. The criminal law change is more nuanced. A simple description: If you are lawfully in a residence or motor vehicle, and someone trespasses or attempts to trespass into that residence or vehicle, then you are legally presumed to be properly acting in self-defense, including using lethal force, until the prosecution proves otherwise.