What's wrong with "duty to retreat" [View all]

[TPaine7]

We live in a country where there is a legal duty to abide by the lawful orders of a police officer. Imagine living in a country where there is a legal duty to abide by the unlawful orders of an armed robber, rapist, murderer or other violent felon.

That's what "duty to retreat" is, a duty to yield to thugs. If you are in a public place and a thug approaches you with a knife and orders you to leave, you are legally required to obey--just as you are when a police orders a crowd you are part of to disperse. In some "civilized" countries, you are legally obligated to obey that thug--if you safely can, in the opinion of a group of comfortable, safe jurors--if the order is given to you in your own house!

That's insane.

One of the most corrupt and barbaric features of popular gun control is its empowerment of criminals. Time and again, its proponents diminish the freedoms and rights of the law-abiding while empowering those who would prey upon them, their families and other innocents.

The current brouhaha about duty to retreat is a desperate attempt at deception. I do not argue that Florida's law is perfect, but duty to retreat is not really at issue. Florida law does not authorize chasing a person down, challenging him, starting a confrontation that gives him every reason to feel threatened, and then "standing your ground."

The real issue seems to be the enforcement of the law. Even perfect laws mean little if the enforcers are negligent, incompetent, corrupt or biased.

I do not want to live in a country where people are as legally obligated to yield to violent felons in any public place as they are to police officers. I REALLY don't want to live in a country where people are legally obligated to leave their houses at any hour of day or night in any state of dress or undress in order to accommodate thugs.

Europe and Canada can keep their legal systems.