I never said that, I disagree with the idea that you cannot be in danger if you can "retreat". I'm certain that victims of school shootings, men on the battlefield, etc. disagree.
What is moronic is thinking that at the slightest threat, you can end someone’s life. That is moronic.
Also, this is not how it works in real life, people who carry have common sense, that's why they're carrying.
Which is precisely all the common sense the prior to this current law which had been in effect for hundreds of years without issue ever required. When the hell has this ever been a problem? It hasn’t. The problem has been with prosecutorial abuse of law abiding citizens who use force lawfully to defend themselves. Expanding this solves none of that. But it does now legalize some pretty egregious pissing contest behavior that results in death. Apparently that’s ok with you. It isn’t with me.
I did. I used a scenario leaving a bar. You are getting into your car and some drunken idiot starts mouthing off to you. Instead of leaving, you decide to start jabbering back. You and the drunk idiot close the distance, more words are exchanged, shit hits the fan, deadly force deployed, and idiot is now dead.
You might not give a shit and say he deserved it. But I say you should have left and neither of you would have been involved in that altercation. Now, "who's dick is bigger" contests are legal. Whereas for hundreds of years in the common law prior, that was not the case.
You all think that somehow we need to amend hundreds of years of law to make you safer. All you are doing is legalizing preventable killings. It does not make you any safer, nor does it make you any less at risk of a rogue Soros prosecutor. What is needed is the protection from prosecutorial abuse. It is this huge fallacy that "I shouldn't have to think about if I can retreat or not, it would cost me my life" going on out there. It simply isn't happening. The law is on the citizen's side. It is the prosecutor who isn't always. So if you change the law, how does that fix the prosecutor problem? Of course it fixes nothing. It's like expanding the uses of dominion machines to other areas like online shopping and the grocery store in order to protect you from voter fraud. It makes zero sense.
None of this has to do with surrendering to criminals. I have yet to see an incident where a person justifiably shot someone but was convicted based on some obscure slim chance of retreating that wasn't real. But I have seen a lot of attempted prosecutions like this. Just look at Kyle Rittenhouse. If you wrote a textbook on the lawful use of deadly force in self defense, and hollywood acted it out, it was him. Yet look where he is at. Take away his duty to retreat (which he did retreat) and it still doesn't save him from being abused by the system.
In case you didn't notice, I didn't start the insulting, I just returned the favor.
I never said that, I disagree with the idea that you cannot be in danger if you can "retreat". I'm certain that victims of school shootings, men on the battlefield, etc. disagree.
Also, this is not how it works in real life, people who carry have common sense, that's why they're carrying.
Which is precisely all the common sense the prior to this current law which had been in effect for hundreds of years without issue ever required. When the hell has this ever been a problem? It hasn’t. The problem has been with prosecutorial abuse of law abiding citizens who use force lawfully to defend themselves. Expanding this solves none of that. But it does now legalize some pretty egregious pissing contest behavior that results in death. Apparently that’s ok with you. It isn’t with me.
Where are these wild west shootouts you fantasize about?
Give an example of one that was previously illegal which would now be legal.
I did. I used a scenario leaving a bar. You are getting into your car and some drunken idiot starts mouthing off to you. Instead of leaving, you decide to start jabbering back. You and the drunk idiot close the distance, more words are exchanged, shit hits the fan, deadly force deployed, and idiot is now dead.
You might not give a shit and say he deserved it. But I say you should have left and neither of you would have been involved in that altercation. Now, "who's dick is bigger" contests are legal. Whereas for hundreds of years in the common law prior, that was not the case.
You all think that somehow we need to amend hundreds of years of law to make you safer. All you are doing is legalizing preventable killings. It does not make you any safer, nor does it make you any less at risk of a rogue Soros prosecutor. What is needed is the protection from prosecutorial abuse. It is this huge fallacy that "I shouldn't have to think about if I can retreat or not, it would cost me my life" going on out there. It simply isn't happening. The law is on the citizen's side. It is the prosecutor who isn't always. So if you change the law, how does that fix the prosecutor problem? Of course it fixes nothing. It's like expanding the uses of dominion machines to other areas like online shopping and the grocery store in order to protect you from voter fraud. It makes zero sense.
None of this has to do with surrendering to criminals. I have yet to see an incident where a person justifiably shot someone but was convicted based on some obscure slim chance of retreating that wasn't real. But I have seen a lot of attempted prosecutions like this. Just look at Kyle Rittenhouse. If you wrote a textbook on the lawful use of deadly force in self defense, and hollywood acted it out, it was him. Yet look where he is at. Take away his duty to retreat (which he did retreat) and it still doesn't save him from being abused by the system.
In case you didn't notice, I didn't start the insulting, I just returned the favor.