Re Castle Doctorine laws if a criminal is in your house at night can you go on the offensive and go hunting for them with a gun throughout the house and be legally OK if you kill them, or must you wait in place until they come to you or make some kind of move?
YES. To the extent you can argue that you or your family are subject to harm by the intruder’s presence in the house. If they’ve entered your house uninvited and without a valid reason (as long as it’s not your mother-in-law showing up uninvited) have at it.
Chase 'em around, hunt them down, treat them the way a cat treats a mouse if you’re so inclined. Just don’t shoot them in the back if you can help it, that creates lots of potential problems.
Ideally though, you’ll whack 'em flat the second you can point at 'em.
Larger homes make for more interesting hunting.
You’re less exposed if you wait and fire from cover. It also gives critical time to confirm its not you mother-in-law in the doorway. 
Interior walls offer practically no protection from bullets. If the bad guy is in the house then he’s a threat to your life.
I’ve always planned to fire from the prone position. Most people would expect upright targets. Get on the floor, calm yourself, confirm the identity of the target and fire at the center of mass.
If he never steps into my room then thats fine too. he can have the tv. I’m not searching the house for the guy.
Castle doctrine simply removes the duty to retreat any further. The use of force (deadly or otherwise) still must be justified by the appropriate fear of harm. Whether that determination is consistent with searching out the intruder will likely be a fact-dependent determination.
Even if legally in the right (and I don’t know the legalities of your question), people who use guns or just point guns at people often end up spending a lot of time with the criminal justice system and a lot of money on lawyers. So think very carefully before doing it.
If intruders come on the island I feel free to give them a knife and release them into the hinterland, then the pack is unleashed and I and Ivan hunt them down.
But we don’t get a lot of intruders.
As an example, Ohio;
2901.05 Burden of proof - reasonable doubt - self-defense.
(A) Every person accused of an offense is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof for all elements of the offense is upon the prosecution. The burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for an affirmative defense, is upon the accused.
(B)
(1) Subject to division (B)(2) of this section, a person is presumed to have acted in self defense or defense of another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the defensive force.
(2)
(a) The presumption set forth in division (B)(1) of this section does not apply if the person against whom the defensive force is used has a right to be in, or is a lawful resident of, the residence or vehicle.
(b) The presumption set forth in division (B)(1) of this section does not apply if the person who uses the defensive force uses it while in a residence or vehicle and the person is unlawfully, and without privilege to be, in that residence or vehicle.
(3) The presumption set forth in division (B)(1) of this section is a rebuttable presumption and may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.
2901.09 No duty to retreat in residence or vehicle.
(A) As used in this section, “residence” and “vehicle” have the same meanings as in section 2901.05 of the Revised Code.
(B) For purposes of any section of the Revised Code that sets forth a criminal offense, a person who lawfully is in that person’s residence has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person’s residence, and a person who lawfully is an occupant of that person’s vehicle or who lawfully is an occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member of the person has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense or defense of another.
I suppose it’s easy to think that a person breaking into an occupied home is not obviously a threat to your life, until and unless it happens to you.
This is how I always interpreted it as well. Basically, unless you say something utterly stupid to the police (or otherwise on the record), you are probably ok if you kill an intruder, assuming your state has the Castle Doctrine.
This makes sense, if you think about it. Generally you are allowed to use lethal force if you fear for your life or you fear grave bodily harm. If an intruder breaks into your home while you are in it, then noone is going to question that you felt threatened. After all, what other reason does he have for breaking into your home other than to hurt you or to steal stuff, while hurting you in the process?
If you do not have “Stand Your Ground” in your state, you are also supposed to retreat if possible, before using force. If you are in your home, you really have nowhere left to retreat to.
I understand that there are those out there who have basically given up on defending either themselves or their homes, but fortunately they are in the minority.
It’s hard to tell what you are trying to say here, but Stand Your Ground laws simply expand the castle doctrine to any place you have a right to be.
Correct. I was merely appealing to common sense why you can’t retreat from your own home. Your home is supposed to be the place you retreat to.
Throwing in “Stand Your Ground” probably clouded the point I was trying to make; sorry about that.
Ah. Carry on, then.
So, under duty to retreat, do you have the duty to run back into your bedroom if a crook walks into your living room and starts loading up your stereo equipment, or jump out your bedroom window if the crook knocks on the door saying he wants your jewelry?
You don’t actually have to go anywhere. You just can’t use deadly force if you could safely retreat.
The bottom line is that you still must be in reasonable fear of death or seriously bodily injury. In most (all?) states, there is a strong rebuttable presumption that someone that has broken into your house is a threat to your life or limb.
But can you use that to turn it into fun man hunting games? No.
Plus, we need to get some terms straight:
Stand your ground law—no duty to retreat anywhere you have a legal right to be.
Castle Doctrine—general duty to retreat everywhere, except no duty to retreat in your own home.
Olde Common Law—retreat everywhere, all the way to the “back wall” of your own home.
I always tell them to get off of the nice carpet and onto the linoleum before I shoot them.
My state does not have SYG, CD, or DtR de jure. De facto it generally recognizes your right to self defense though. In most cases in all states, as long as it’s obvious that you killed someone who wasn’t fleeing, etc., then you’re more likely to be legally okay. Even in the strongest SYG state (hint, Texas is not as strong as you think), shooting someone in the back will cause lots of problems for you.
And my only possible “duty to retreat” here means jumping out of a second story window, possibly bringing multiple pets with me. Or somehow hide (where?), or die.
I have thought of it.
I choose to spend time in the justice system as necessary rather than spending time at funeral homes for members of my family.
You imply that your time is more important to you than the safety of your family members.
Depends on where you live. In Alaska you can shoot 'em in the back as they run away down your driveway.
The standard phrase along the same lines is: “better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six.”