I snipped this to only include the relevant point...
No one has ever implied anything about "taking anyone's word". The are still responsible for conducting a thorough investigation, and arresting anyone they have probable cause to suspect of an unlawful use of force. The only thing this has changed is that the police have the burden of proof of producing probable cause to believe that the shooting was unlawful, where before a person could simply be arrested even if it was the most clear-cut case of self defense in the world.
It is my belief that there is absolutely no reason to treat a victim of a violent crime like a common criminal. They did not ask for that to be thrust upon them, and to suggest they spend even one night in jail because they had to defend themselves is too much. No, murder should not be taken leniently, and this law does not advocate it to be taken in such a way. This law protects victims of violent crime.
You mention that the defense of habitation is the only place this law should apply, in your opinion. Why is that? Someone's house is probably the best place to commit a murder if you're going to. You have control of every single variable around. There are no witnesses if you don't want there to be. Laws can be abused, but the point is that you don't victimize the victim any more than necessary. All of the physical evidence is still present, an investigation is still conducted. The only difference is that the person that had to defend their life is not put in handcuffs and forced to do a perp walk and spend time behind bars because they were the prey.
Police can choose what they investigate and what they don't, and this law has no impact on when a department or investigating officers want to conduct a shoddy investigation for whatever reason. It's occurred before the law, and it will occur after. That is not the fault of the law, that is the fault of corrupt humans.
