Eric Holder believes that when you’re attacked by a brutal thug, you “have a duty to retreat”…what do YOU say?
BTW, what does this have to do with the Martin/Zimmerman case anyway?
Advertisements
Atty Gen Holder: When Attacked, You “Have a Duty to Retreat”…
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://hastingsopinion.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/atty-gen-holder-when-attacked-you-have-a-duty-to-retreat/trackback/
My take on the duty to retreat is this. Considering that NC does not force me to retreat, I have decided that, should the situation arise, I WILL make every effort to do so. Why? Because if it should ever go to trial I will make sure that jury knows I avoided using deadly force above & beyond what the law required. As to whether the laws need to change, I find it interesting that Eric Holder wants to limit the actions of the intended victim instead of the aggressor. How does this apply to the Zimmerman case? There was no issue with retreating…he had no opportunity to retreat once he was on the ground. Eric Holder is either quite dense concerning this case or he’s just using another situation to come down hard on gun rights.
Retreat hell! If I reasonably believe that my life, my wife’s life or another person’s life is in danger. I will force, including lethal force, to save a life.
What kind of crap is this? Duty to who? The attacker? Why would a victim have a duty to do anything except protect themselves? Why should the victim avoid injuring someone who is obviously not concerned about injuring them? My god, this nonsense is ridiculous. If I am attacked, my “duty” is to survive by any means possible. If that means the attacker is injured or killed, that is a shame. It’s a risk taken when attacking someone.
PURE BOVINE EXCREMENT !……………………………..boy!