[hga]

The backlash from the nation's "soft on crime" policies started much earlier, e.g. see Dirty Harry in 1971 and I gather Death Wish in 1974. Real world traction on reversing them, I think seriously started in the '80s.

But see my other reply in this sub-sub-thread: what middle ground is there between being forced by the law to retreat from your home and being allowed to use lethal force upon a reasonable apprehension of a sufficient threat? Do you really believe in allowing criminals to chase you out of your home, abandoning your loved ones who can't defend themselves?

It's ancient, ancient doctrine; per Wikipedia "The legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in Western Civilization since the age of the Roman Republic." When it comes to Western law you can't get older than the Twelve Tables in 450 BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Tables), in which I assume this was codified.

[cobrausn]

No, I don't, but I was trying to clarify the statement. A middle ground for this is difficult, because it basically depends upon determining after the fact whether or not you or anyone else in the home was actually threatened (or whether you could reasonably perceive it that way).

[hga]

Errr, the latter is how these incidents are judged. E.g. the woman who recently ran down a man carrying a sawed off air soft shotgun; especially with the orange tip removed, she could not tell that he wasn't actually threatening in that way. Similarly, a criminal using a fake gun to commit a robbery gets a charge of armed or aggravated robbery.

This is determined after the fact all the time, presumably in the Wisconsin case, and definitely in the Zimmerman/Martin case before it was politicized.