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

[anomiep]

157. I would suggest to you

Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2013, 04:26 AM - Edit history (9)

That claiming it's all NRA talking points rather than what I really think based on what I've read in the law in the various states that I've lived in, and claiming that I'm begging the question, is not the best of ways to get someone to change their mind if your position is actually correct.

And on that basis, I ask you: when a law is actually codified in a statute covering a particular situation, what happens to the common law that applied to that same situation?

I'm fine with statutes that have language like 'complete safety' - as long as the courts, etc recognize that in an actual, justifiable self defense situation there is rarely, if ever, complete safety, at least at close quarters. If there's solid case or common law in a duty to retreat state that essentially boils down to, if you're not the aggressor and you didn't provoke an average person's probable going to be fine, I'm OK with that, too. What I don't want is passage of laws that would require someone under attack to literally flee until they're put in a corner if they can - or don't actually require that but put someone who has actually, reasonably defended themselves in a position where a prosecutor is prosecuting anyway. Perhaps that is a fear that's not currently going to actually happen, but some of the laws, you read them, and it looks like that's what they say - and prosecutors are not judged by getting the law right, they're judged by getting convictions or plea deals.

I am not worried about the Texas law because it clearly delineates that you have to have three things: a) the right to be where you are, b) not be committing a crime, and c) you did not provoke the conflict. This is *on top* of a reasonable person standard for use of force or deadly force.

The Texas law, enforced as worded, addresses most if not all of the objections in the article you posted. Drug dealers are committing crimes, people provoking the conflict fall back to having to disengage with a duty to retreat, etc. If you still think the Texas law isn't reasonable*, well, then I respectfully disagree and we'll just have to leave it at that. If you remember, I stated the Florida law was not, at least in respect to the examples in the article, and should be changed.

*I should clarify here that I mean reasonable in respect to the self defense portions. There are certain portions that I am not at all as comfortable with and honestly, even though they make certain conditions legal, I'm going to make damn sure I never fall under them - if someone wants to spray paint the outside of my house at night I'll call the cops and let them deal with it. However, those portions are not the language that removes a duty to retreat.