A couple of observations...
First, as to the issue of "law v. case law" and "rogue courts"; it's important to remember that cops, judges, prosecutors, bailiffs, defense attorneys, garbagemen, dentists, plumbers, and on and on, all have one characteristic in common - they're mostly humans. And as humans, they are normally distributed along the Gaussian (normal, bell) curve with respect to every human characteristic. Some of them are really good, some are really bad, and most are average. There are intellectually dishonest courts - one of my pet peeves is the use of the word, "interpret", as code for "I don't like the law the way it is, so I'm going to make something up and call it an 'interpretation'." - as though the law and opinions had been written in Sanskrit. But some judges are really, really good, too. I'm reminded of Judge J.R. Zepkin who presided over a case in Surry County some time back - a general district court judge who was up on the law (and knew more about it than I did, which was a real surprise to me) and applied it honestly.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?89450
Secondly, for those of us who are privileged to reside in The Blessed Commonwealth, keep in mind that most of the legal systems in the U.S. are corruptions of ours, of that derived from early Massachussetts, from later New York, from the French Civil Law (Code Napolean - Louisianna), and from Spanish colonial law (also a civil law basis with a healthy dose of Catholic Canon Law). Virginia's legal system goes back to William the Conqueror, and all the laws, statutes, decrees, and acts of Parliament up to the fourth year of the reign of James I are included in Virginia's legal lexicon. Most states don't have a thousand years of legal history to understand and apply. But the common law stops at the founding of Jamestown - Virginia's courts are "common law" courts only because they apply the common law as it was known to the early settlers, not because they have the power to make stuff up. Because we have a tripartite system of sovereign powers, only the legislature can make stuff up with the consent of the Governor. Nevertheless, precedential statements in court opinions are supposed to be taken as authoritative and applied. Statements like those of the majority in the recent Castleman case, on the other hand, are "mere dicta", stating the personal opinions of the authors, and based on information having nothing to do with the underlying case - such statements have no value as precedents, even though they come from the U.S. Sup. Ct., and need not be followed.
As to the comments made by the attorney who wrote the article:
1) Talking to cops: if they have probable cause to arrest you, they will arrest you, and talking to them prior to the arrest (when they don't have to give you warnings) will only be treated as your confession later on. If they do not have probable cause to arrest you, talking to them will give them the probable cause to arrest you almost no matter what you say. Look at your right hand in these situations, and reflect on the five fingers that ought to be there: those fingers stand for five letters, which you should memorize and which ought to come to mind when you look at your hand that way: K Y B M S. Keep Your Big Mouth Shut. Also download the "letter to law enforcement" from my website and keep a few copies everywhere you might need one. Other than, "I want my lawyer", don't say anything to the cops.
2) After a shooting, call 911, but keep in mind that the line is recorded. I wouldn't say, "there's been a shooting", I'd say, "A man has been injured, please send an ambulance."; identify yourself and give your address (or location) and hang up once you know they have the information they need. Then don't answer the phone when they call back. When the ambulance crew arrives, they'll call the cops, and that's ok. Make sure your gun is available and unloaded in a place where the cops can take it if they want to without your having to touch it. Never touch a firearm in the presence of law enforcement even if they order you to do so. "Going for your gun" will give them license to kill.
3) I agree that "reasonableness" is a part of the definition of self-defense, but the key word isn't "reasonableness", it's "necessity". If you don't need to kill, don't touch the gun, don't look at it, don't talk about it, don't gesture towards it, don't think about it, and don't show it off. At common law, which may or may not be applicable in your state, you don't have to be engaged in self defense / defense of innocent others in order to take effective action to defend your habitation against intruders (that's the original meaning of "the castle doctrine"), or to stop a serious felony (rape, robbery, murder, arson, and burglary) in progress. You do have to know what you're doing, of course, sort of like a general application of "Know your target and what's beyond it." Here's my definition of the self-defense rule: "If you have a reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact, that you or another innocent person is being subjected to the imminent (or "immediate") threat of serious (or "grievous") bodily injury, then you make take whatever steps are reasonably necessary under the circumstances, up to and including the use of deadly force, to quell that threat."
4) In Virginia you may "stand your ground" in self defense situations when you played no role in starting the ruckus that led to your having to defend yourself, and in defense of habitation regardless (as long as you didn't pull some stunt to entice your "home invader" into the house just so's you could kill him). It's not relevant to stopping a serious felony in progress. If you caused the fuss, no matter how slightly, you have to run away until you can't get away anymore before you're allowed to stop, turn, and "become the aggressor" (as the Virginia Sup. Ct. puts it).
5) "It isn't always being fast, or even accurate, that counts; it's being willing. I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren't willing. Theyl draw a breath or blink an eye before they pull the trigger... I won't." John Wayne as "John Bernard Books" in "The Shootist". If you carry a gun for personal defense, make sure you're willing and when necessity (note that key word) arises, shoot to kill. The law is a binary choice - be deadly or be harmless, there's really no middle ground, regardless of what makes sense, either from a practical or moral point of view. If you don't have the need to kill, don't even think about the gun. If you do need to kill, pull it out of the holster after you've found cover (or at least concealment) and use it effectively. You don't become the boss of the situation if you've got your gun out; you don't immobilize your adversary by having the gun out; and you have no ability to hold someone until the police arrive just because you have a gun out. If you shoot someone who has ceased to be a threat, you're a murderer. Bad guy can simply get up and walk away, or worse, take your gun away and shoot you or a family member.
Otherwise, I very much liked the article, and I hope everyone will read it.