Nope. Sorry. I don't want to make it easier for the state when it comes to criminal prosecution

[DirkGently]

55. There's an old saw lawyers quote about "Hard facts make bad law."

It comes from those times when a court "finds a way" to make something happen legally, because the facts seem to call for it, when the law doesn't. It refers to case law that ends up creating problems down the road because a judge set a bad precedent in reaching for a desired result.

That said, there may be things we can do. I think ordinary self-defense is skewed when people *walk the streets* with a weapon.

Defending the home has long been recognized as a special case where there is no "duty to retreat."Stand Your Ground laws turn that on its head, and give people the right to "stand and fight" even if they could safely escape the situation. It's a terrible concept, and the case at hand didn't involve a question of the ability to flee, it did involve a person initiating a series of events, while armed, that wound up with a claim of lethal self-defense.

It's possible we can do something about that, without chucking the 5th Amendment. Certainly SYG should go, everywhere, as soon as possible. Beyond that, if we are going to allow large numbers of people to walk around with firearms, we could enhance the standard for self-defense. Or create a higher standard for initiating a confrontation while armed.

As it stands, I think there is a dangerous mindset, reinforced by this case, among a few people with dreams of "cleaning up the streets" or what have you, via the 2d Amendment and a warped notion of what the responsibilities of an "armed citizen" should be.