Connecticut, which requires retreat, wants to weaken self-defense even farther

Well this is one other thing they can do. Make it illegal to use force to defend yourself in any format?

So if you are at a grade school and the next Adam Lanza is slaughtering kids, do you have to run away rather than stop him?

This is just like Canada where the people are subjects and not citizens. One cannot defend oneself even in one's home. They have forced entry while someone is home at much higher rates than the US and these entries usually involve the homeowner being injured or killed.

Note: Seattle is looking to ban the word citizen in favor of resident so as not to offend certain persons.

As happened over and over and over, each country that has embraced immorality has failed. The US is in its death throes now.

Who is to blame? Primarily We the People. We chose the corrupt, immoral, unethical people who occupy our government positions. And they chose even more corrupt, immoral, and unethical people to do the work of destroying the greatness what once was.

The actual language of the current Connecticut law is not bad at all: "...a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if he or she knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety (1) by retreating ..."

The knowledge that is is "completely safe" to retreat is absent from most confrontations with criminals. I believe that courts have taken a narrower view of this, but the language as written is fine. And there are exceptions to the duty to retreat for, among other things, people in their own houses.

In particular, when confronting an Adam Lanza type, the "necessity of using such force" is for the protection of others, so that necessity could not be avoided by retreating. (Protecting a "third person" is explicitly allowed for by the law.)

So the law could easily be more favorable to criminals.

The Connecticut statute number is 53a-19.

hey if you are a white Hispanic you are supposed to let yourself be killed rather than defend yourself

Short and sweet. We've maintained from the start that the TM/GZ case was really about more gun control. If you don't have the right to defend yourself...then you don;t need the tools to do it. Neat how that works, hu?

law makers, what happened to the right to defend yourself and property