Note how the conditions for invoking the castle doctrine are set by society, not by the property owner. It's not a method defined within the class. It's a method inherited from the superclass.

You missed entirely flexie's point. Flexie gave numerous examples of circumstances in which the owner of a private property can not legally do as he/she pleases. Your response is to mention the castle doctrine. What is the purpose of this?

Your response is especially bad because according to the linked article:

"..as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force..."

Note that is says, "in certain circumstances". Flexie wrote that you can't just hit someone in the face in your house. Flexie is correct in this and the castle doctrine in no way disputes this.

I don't believe this answer deserves a downvote.

I think this answer missed a (somewhat) negation in the middle of the parent posts' argument