If you have a gun and the other guy doesn't . . .

[anomiep]

114. It is not zero benefit

If you are in public, minding your own business, and breaking no law, and I assault you with either nonlethal or lethal force, are you comfortable having to run, even if I keep coming after you, until it is literally impossible to run anymore, before defending yourself?

If you are, well, fine. Me, I think that if someone tries to hit me with a tire iron I shouldn't have to run away before I can defend myself. I have the option of running, and I'll take it, but imposing a duty to retreat is not reasonable, because it places the defender at a *huge* disadvantage, as it completely removes all use of force options that would end things more quickly by making them illegal if the defender can retreat.

Example: Guys swinging a tire iron at you but you can retreat. Say it's going to take ten minutes of you running before the guy corners you. Now you are a) in a corner and b) have been running for ten minutes. Whereas if, perhaps, you just kicked him in the nads 9 minutes ago when he opened that up to you after you've been backing off for only a minute, the whole thing is nine minutes shorter.

As for vigilantism, I disagree that merely defending yourself with force, in a situation where you were minding your own business, did not provoke the attack, and weren't involved in the commission of a crime is vigilantism, if that's what you're claiming - and actual vigilantism is illegal under the law because you're involved in the commission of a crime, so you'd lose the protection to begin with.

This is, of course, if the law as written is being correctly applied, and if it's not, that's a problem and it should be fixed - but you don't fix it by removing innocent people's options.