At the end of the story, the reporter said she spoke to Ron Scott and asked him what he thought someone should do if someone was breaking into his home. His response was that they had the right to defend themselves. She said that he went on to say that his concern was that people would start taking it too far, becoming vigilantes, etc., or maybe become so frightened that they became a little trigger happy. Sometimes it happens, like that fellow who shot the drunk teenager through his door (who was arrested).
Ron Scott's presentation at the hearing was about a problem that does not yet exist (rampant vigilantism in Detroit), he was concerned that it might someday, but he screwed it all up. He should have said something along the lines of "People have the right to defend themselves, there are laws as to what is an is not justifiable force, and don't become so scared that you start breaking those laws."
I think that some people find a trend of citizens defending themselves with deadly force a little strange and frightening, even if they would agree that individual incidents were justifiable. Then they go on to say silly things, rather than giving it some thought.
Being supportive of the right to defend oneself and others with deadly force and being against vigilantism are not mutually exclusive, of course, but some folks have a hard time with that. Perhaps because they perceive both ideas being on different ends of the same continuum. I don't see it that way. I think that there it useful to think of a continuum where at some point deadly force goes from being justifiable to not justifiable, and therefore criminal. However, my perception of vigilantes is that they are more like hunters and everything they do toward that end pursuit is criminal.
Very well thought out, EdC. You were able to get past the initial knee-jerk better than some of us.