Now, this is the media that I'm used to
A Columbus OH paper responds to bills intended to expand self defense rights with a headline: "State lawmakers hope to pass a 'shoot first' bill" More below.
The article tells us: " It’s unclear whether Ohio’s proposed law would have helped alleged Worthington shooter Allen Davis." Looking up the guy's case shows that he fired warning shots to drive off some harmless teenage trespassers, then when they drove in the course of departing shot into their car and seriously injured one. OK, sounds like attempted murder/agg. assault material to me. But where would "castle doctrine" or "no retreat" have any effect on those? They hadn't entered his house, and he had no reason to fear they might inflict deadly harm upon him. He's guilty with or without the law.
A prosecutor says “You could have a neighbor who thinks he has an informal privilege to enter your home. He takes one step inside, and you blow him away,” Murphy said. “Under the bill, you’re immune from murder charges." If it's like the other Castle Doctrine bills, the requirement is that the intruder enter forcefully and illegally, so the neighbor would have believe he has an informal privilege to open your door with a battering ram or crowbar. Which is a bit much, even for neighbors you trust.
A supporter explains, "If there’s a home invasion, what are my obligations? Do I have to run to my safe room and cower behind the door?” (Actually, I might add, not, under current Ohio law. this 2005 case indicates Ohio does require retreat for use of deadly (but not nondeadly) force, but the requirement only applies outside of one's house.
Clue to reporter: "basically there has to be eminent harm or death to the homeowner" -- that's imminent, not eminent.