New Florida Law: You Are Not Required to Retreat if Attacked in a Public Place Before you Can Defend Yourself

Story dated 27 April 2005

Well, this is exceedingly good news. I have never liked the doctrine that you have a responsibility to retreat if you are attacked before you are allowed to defend yourself. Some states actually require you to retreat if your home is invaded. I guess the thinking is that if someone holds you up at knifepoint, you still can't be sure that they want to harm you, so to check, you should flee. If they chase you, you know that they really do mean to harm you and can then use self-defense. And if that's really how the idiots like Ted Kennedy and Sarah Brady think, I really don't understand why anyone listens to them at all.

All of the opponents to this law claim that it will increase violence. Really? And the knowledge by criminals that law abiding citizens can't defend themselves in public right away won't increase violence? If you think that, you're not thinking logically.

For opponents of this law, I have a question: If I am walking down a street, and I am attacked by someone, why should I have a responsibility to retreat from the situation? I am not the one engaged in malfeasance. I am sick and tired of these politicians trying to protect predators in this country. Sure they throw the book at people like Martha Stewart and non-violent drug users, but they go out of their way to protect actual predators who mean other people harm. Why is that? Do they ever stop to think that this law might actually deter predators from trying to prey upon the innocent?

posted by The Sovereign Editor | 10:47 AM

_____________________________________________