The week before St. Patrick's Day, I found myself alone in my bedroom wondering if I needed to find a weapon. There's a hunting knife in the safe, I remembered. Guns in my roommate's room upstairs. Would any of that be necessary? What if I don't know how much danger I'm really in?

These are the questions that go through your head when there's a stranger in your bathroom.

I had let the stranger - apparently a twentysomething, slobbering-drunk straggler who burst confidently and without warning through the main entrance of my home - use the bathroom out of fear that he'd throw up all over a couch or floor.

Dabbler in pacifism that I am, I decided to remain unarmed. When the stranger came out, I even offered him a glass of water and a phone call to have someone pick him up.

But when it was apparent that all he wanted was to be inside my home, I asked him to leave. When he wouldn't go peaceably, I pushed him out the door and locked it behind him.

In all, the situation turned out to be pretty harmless. But I'd lucked out.

First, he'd turned out to be a real drunk straggler. One's first instinct is not to harm someone already sloshed beyond recognition, but that's assuming it's not all just an act. Criminals have been known to deceive on occasion.

Second, despite having chopped many a wooden board in grade-school tae kwon do, I was completely unprepared to deal with a stranger inside my residence. A glass of water? A helpful phone call? Who am I, Mother Teresa?

In short, I'll be ready next time. I likely won't be brandishing a shotgun in any situation short of a zombie apocalypse, but I won't be running a bed and breakfast, either. Thanks to the castle doctrine, people less lucky than me get the benefit of the doubt when faced with a potential home invasion.

That castle doctrine laws come with the occasional accident does not make them bad policy. Would you rather the headlines read, "Community columnist murdered in own home; local idiot even offered his killers water"? Don't answer that.

Opponents go further and suggest aggressive self-defense policies give outlet to racism, as criticism in the Trayvon Martin and Bo Morrison cases demonstrate. They imagine the castle doctrine empowering racist, crotchety war veterans a la Clint Eastwood in "Gran Torino" and forget it really just empowers anyone who likes not being killed in his or her home.

If the side effect of making cynicism a matter of public policy is that more people are afraid of trespassing on private property and provoking strangers, well, that's kind of the point.

I'm lucky because I got a taste of potential danger without the harm. The result? I've learned to stop worrying and love the castle doctrine. Besides, the critics should be glad the doctrine just applies to castles.

Otherwise, I'd built a moat, too.

Dan Kenitz of Milwaukee is a freelance writer. Email comments@dankenitz.com