Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation’s attention, it’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods. (sustained applause) These laws try to fix something that was never broken. There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if – and the “if” is important – no safe retreat is available.WSJ
But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely. By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety. The list of resulting tragedies is long and – unfortunately – has victimized too many who are innocent. It is our collective obligation – we must stand our ground – (applause) to ensure that our laws reduce violence, and take a hard look at laws that contribute to more violence than they prevent.
What Holder and his ilk trumpets is the portion of SYG that calls for the victim to make an assessment of the level of danger that they are in [usually with the luxury of only a few seconds]. What the gun control cabal conveniently ignores, is that the 'duty to retreat' concept also requires a victim to make a split second assessment, as to whether or not they have a reasonably safe avenue to escape.
In both cases, the victim is required to assess the situation, and act decisively. But in both cases, this person is still the VICTIM. Call me a neanderthal if you like, but if someone assaults my person, or my family....they have made the decision that could forfeit their own life. And they'll live...or die...by that decision.
Massad Ayoob has an outstanding explanation of the ridiculous assertions being made against SYG in the media, and by the gun control cabal.