Shooting a dog thief?

It is important to note that the Castle Doctrine provides a defense to prosecution, not a guarantee of autonomy. It may provide the protections required to secure a no-bill decision at grand jury, or it may result in indictment, depending upon the circumstance. If an indictment were handed down, the doctrines interpretation by a judge or jury may or may not provide for successful defense.

Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of persons.

The doctrine gives no consideration to the value of property being protected, that I am aware of, so lets look at the individual scenarios that you gave.

1) I think that there are far too many variables and circumstances to expect a no-bill based only upon the rights provided by the doctrine. That being said, and assuming that malice intent were not a factor, I would assume it to provide you with a stable defense in court.

2) The dogs are not only your property, but also on your homestead. I would like to think that in such a scenario, the doctrine would provide strong enough protection from prosecution to guarantee a no-bill from Grand Jury. The type of property being threatened or stolen should be of no bearing on the facts of the case, or interpretation of the law.

Steve