>I think you need to reconcile the fact that when you lease a property you no longer have full reign over the space.

That is not relevant here.

>Here the owner can’t consent to her b&e simply because she owns it, if the property is leased out.

This isn’t how the law works. There are undoubtably other crimes and torts the owner could be charged with here. That’s irrelevant to whether or not the castle doctrine could apply to the tenant’s self defense claims. RIs castle doctrine laws limit application of that defense to B&E cases as defined in the statute.

The owner did something wrong. That something wasn’t B&E, so the castle doctrine won’t provide a defense here.

>The tenant has a right to possession and use of the space.

Right. Again, other torts and crimes, not relevant to the castle doctrine. Which is what I was writing about. Specifically.

>Also, what the LL here is doing is illegal anyways there is no what are called “self help” evictions in RI, check the Landlord Tenant Act. See 34-18-44 about self help.

That’s probably why I specifically stated that the landlord was engaged in an illegal self-help eviction. Because they’re not legal. I mean, I’m guessing that was my thought process.

>Disclaimer: I’m a lawyer but don’t really do this work, but I definitely think your reasoning that LL can just consent away b&e is dead wrong.

Disclaimer: I’d say I think that you’ve been on the wrong end of “I’m a lawyer”ing me before, but a good lawyer does not just think, they confidently assert.