"No retreat" law repeal
I've noticed that, whenever a person or group objects to "no retreat," they never say just what they want to do about it, other than "talk" or "have a dialogue" on it. That's because the purpose of the protest is to have a protest, and not to air a proposal. So I'll supply the deficiency with a draft bill they can endorse.
Whereas, the lives and persons of murderers, rapists, robbers, and other violent criminals are offered insufficient protection under existing law, and
Whereas, murderers, rapists, robbers, and other violent criminals are exposed to undue and unreasonable danger from resisting victims, and
Whereas, a home is not a castle,
Therefore be it enacted:
I. Limitation on Use of Force in Self-Defense.
A. The victim of attempted murder, rape, robbery or other violent offense is not justified in using force to resist unless the said victim is unable to retreat from the person attempting the violent offence.
B. A person attempting to prevent the commission of murder, rape, robbery or other violent offense against another person is not justified unless the victim is unable to retreat from the person attempting the violent offense.
C. This Act shall be entitled “The Violent Criminals’ Protection Act of 2013.”
Well, it pretty much works that way in England, so why not in the USA, too?
Liberals would be ecstatic, until the time comes when THEY are the ones facing a bad guy.
Posted by: Tom at September 5, 2013 01:26 PM
For cryin' out loud, Dave! Don't give them any ideas. They're likely to take this advice.
Posted by: Jim D. at September 5, 2013 08:05 PM
They will never face it because their armed security force won't let that happen :)
Posted by: Rich at September 6, 2013 06:57 AM
I think back in the "old days" there was a "fear" of being hanged for assaulting someone or someone's property......it seemed to work back then.
Posted by: cp at September 6, 2013 10:43 AM
It's not so much that they want to protect the criminals, though that is a part of it. More importantly, they want to make sure YOU are under someone's thumb. Or as was quoted here;
"It’s not that many who support gun control want to live in a world without criminals having guns, they want to live in a world without people like you and me."
That would explain a whole lot.
Posted by: Lyle at September 6, 2013 12:21 PM
I like it. Leave it JUST like that. No exemptions for police or uniformed armed security.
That way, Rich's statement above can't come to pass, since the liberals' armed security agents are also bound by a duty to retreat.
Actually, now that I think about it, it's good that there's no "in complete safety" added to the retreat requirement, but maybe we should clarify that to make sure one isn't implied: "...not justified in using any degree of force to resist unless the victim is completely and entirely unable to retreat from the person attempting the violent offence."
Also, make violation of this Act a Class A Violent Felony (or Class 1, depending on jurisdiction).
Posted by: Archer at September 6, 2013 12:39 PM
I think B) covers the ability of hired security to act in protection of others. "A person attempting to prevent the commission of murder, . . . against another person is not justified unless the victim is unable to retreat from the person attempting the violent offense.
Which is as it should be. Security guards have no more special knowledge about when crimes are occurring than do any other citizens.
Posted by: Windy Wilson at September 6, 2013 02:39 PM
Thats almost believable, except for the title.
Doesn't standard naming practice require a name like "The Protecting America Act" or "The Right to Defense Act"?
“The Violent Criminals’ Protection Act" doesn't fit the content.
Posted by: chris stewart at September 7, 2013 06:20 PM