I however, rarely imbibe.

You continue to mis-characterize Castle doctrine/Castle Defense doctrine. There is justification...the presence of people in the property being broken into. It does not legalize set guns or other booby traps. It allows investigation to verify the circumstances indeed meet the standards set out. The example often used is how to make sure it is not used to allow someone to shoot their ex, when they were invited over as a setup. It is not legalized murder by any means. It does indeed reverse some legal burdens. So far I have not seen that to be a problem.

Some legal "experts" in the US do indeed decry castle defense, others have welcomed it. The common knowledge about lawyers, get 3 in a room, you can get 5 opinions. More over, it is for the most part settled law. That some legal academics do not like it is in many ways moot.

We will have this discussion as often as you post your mis-statements, obfuscations, and snide comments. There is a Burke quote that covers the reason.