The "duty to retreat" was trumpted as a means to avoid confrontations that would lead to injuries. Unfortunately, it became an absolute and there is no way of knowing how many were injured, maimed or killed following that dictum. Seems common sense was thrown out the window when some twit came up with that one.

When the spate of school shooting occurred, I told my kids that their life was precious and that I expected them to fight for it. The last thing I wanted them to do is be passive and just let it happen. Kick, bite, throw whatever is at hand, beat 'em to death with a ruler, but don't give up and submit. There was a sentence that caught my eye after the Virginia Tech shootings. One of the victims was pointing out where he'd been wounded. He said "That's the desk I chose to die under". Whether he intended or not, the wording indicated (to me) it was not the location (place) he chose, it was the fact he chose to die.

Crooks have grown up on the idea that citizens will retreat passively, they've staked their "careers" on it. When the good finally realize they outnumber the misfits and don't have to take their shit things will change.

I think the duty to retreat doctrine began its not fast enough decline to death on Flight 93. The first 2 planes followed duty to retreat, and we lost the WTC, Flight 93 acted, and (very sadly) died preventing some other target from being hit.

Are you by any chance a liberal? Your rant is based on feelings an an ingnorance of underlying facts.

Before an individual uses DEADLY FORCE against a criminal, he has a duty to retreat under certain circumstances. If the crook 1) isn't inside your house, 2) isn't threatening you or someone else, or is not advancing toward you, you have a "duty to retreat" before blowing him away. You also can't use deadly force against 1) a fleeing crook, or 2) one that has stolen property from you and is outside absconding.

Make whatever points you want, but your anaolgy to "duty to retreat" is misplaced.

Concepts like duty to retreat seem to be very much how Liberals see the world. Such a concept explains how they can see Iraq's freedom from Saddam Hussein as a bad thing - we should not have taken him down, you see, it was somehow "wrong" to free millions of innocent Iraqis from a mad dictator. Same thing in Afghanistan; the Left would argue that even an evil usurping group like the Taliban somehow constituted a 'sovereign government',

You are proceeding from the false assumption the Left doesn't privately envy Tyrannical rule despite how much they love to decry it in their political opponents.

So they see tyrannical regimes as quite legitimate. Perhaps even more legitimate than their own.

aircav, your pretend law is very amusing, but here in the real world I catch such vapid attempts pretty quick.

No, I am not a Liberal. But you appear to me to be a liar.

Aircav;
Just to muddy the waters, any citizen has the right to make an arrest when a crime is committed in their presence. Along with that right is the authority to use 'reasonable force' to affect that arrest. Then it comes down to the facts in each individual case. You probably won't get away with shooting someone fleeing a property crime. Change that crime to rape or serious assault and you have a completely different case.

#3--I believe you are confusing the terms "duty to retreat" and "use of deadly force" and using them interchangeably. They are not the same. Duty to retreat is the notion that you should not defend your property, family, rights or life in the presence of a threat. Use of deadly force is using force to permanently incapacitate a person.

There is no situation in which you should be under a duty to retreat--you may choose to retreat if your determine that is your best option but are not and should never be under any obligation to retreat.

You have an arguable point that there may be situations that deadly force is not necessary, but that is best left to those in the dangerous situations, not armchair quarterbacks like you or me or, worse, lawyers. What if an unarmed man who just burgled your home is running away, outside your house, but going to his car to get a gun? And how can you know if he has a gun in his car? His waistband? What if you surprised him and he wants you to think he's unarmed so you'll drop your guard and give him an opportunity to take you out with a hidden weapon?

The use of deadly force is serious--those that use it can reasonably expect to have their decision looked at by a grand jury. However, extreme situations do not easily lend themselves to hard-and-fast rules, which is why I think juries tend to give the benefit of the doubt to those who exercise their right to defend themselves under duress.

I disagree completely. Progressives are not committed to retreating, or not fighting for what they believe in.

An example would be the palestinians. Never a peep of protest when a splodeydope self ignites and kills a bunch of innocent israeli children.

The truth is they dont believe in america, you can ask them sometime what they think America stands for.

Who would fight for a country that represents racism, jingoism, and war?

And as Obama's buddies have demonstrated, they will fight, bomb, and kill americans, Just ask Ayers.

to quote someone wiser than i: "They arent anti-war, they are actually on the other side"

-lee
+++

President Iron Spine spent the afternoon watching tee ball. Fun!

"the Left would argue that even an evil usurping group like the Taliban somehow constituted a 'sovereign government', which we were wrong to confront and remove, even though they protected and supported Al Qaeda and the monsters who committed 9/11's horrors."

Geez, DJ, I was starting to worry there for a while. You were starting to sound lucid and somewhat reasonable. Good to see you are back to you extreme ignorance and buffoonery. Show me a quote from a prominent liberal stating that we should not go into Afghanistan. Not some extreme fringe blogger, but a prominent Democrat. You certainly have the credibility to talk about ultra-right-wing viewpoints, but when you spout off about what liberals think you demonstrate your extreme ignorance.

Coming from you max, your insults just show I was on target. Thanks!

MAX,

Certainly not surprising that the left has trouble with those "ultra right-wing viewpoints", like: believing it legitimate to defend one's life and property with the use of deadly force; knowing it to be just and heroic to free 40 million people in two nations from the grip of tyranical lunacy; refusing to take it seriously when third rate nations like France denegrate and presume to dictate policy to the United States.

I would shoot a fleeing burglar in the back. You absolutely should, and would be a fool not to.

You leave him alive, he'll come back another time and this time you might not get to your gun before he gets to you. This concept is explored endlessly and with relish in B-horror movies where the heroine shoots the villain and then runs away before making sure he is really, truly dead.

Empty the clip. Then cut his head off if the clip failed to do so.

Some who hate President Bush for protecting the nation, have claimed that his decisions and directives have hurt our standing in the world.

We hate Bush for making the world less secure, not protecting the nation.

Are such a dolt as to beleive that liberals are going saying we hate Bush for protecting us?

Dave, a simple refresher in basic Engish grammar would do your posts a world of good.

As for your lying about Bush, well, for that you will need the services of a competent psychologist ...

This does not mean that war without restraint is always the most desirable, but it does mean that when we are attacked, we are right to answer in full force.

IRAQ DIDN'T ATTACK US

DJ,

How did I lie about Bush?

DJ,

If anyone should be accused of dis-honesty its you for perpetuating the myth that Iraq was involved in 9-11.

"This does not mean that war without restraint is always the most desirable, but it does mean that when we are attacked, we are right to answer in full force."

Clever evasion DJ, but I'm not going to let you off quite that easily. I know you don't have anything to back up your claims, but I'll ask again. Do you have even one quote from a prominent American liberal stating that we should not invade Afghanistan?

And speaking of Afghanistan and the perpetrators of 911, how's your buddy Bush doing at bringing them to justice? Seems to me he ran away to Iraq before taking care of business in Afghanistan. Oh, and guess what? The Taliban is back. Heckuva job, Bushie.

Also, before you bust someone else's chops over grammar, maybe you should try using spellcheck.

Dave and Max are in full squeal mode, I see.

Almost as good as fireworks!

DJ,

Scowcroft, a former Air Force general and national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush disagrees with you.

He has stated that the next president should absolutely talk with leaders such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Snocroft is pretty smart. In 2002 he correctly predicted "Don't Attack Saddam...could turn the whole region into a cauldron and thus destroy the war on terrorism"

Do you also think Scowcroft ascribes to your ridiculus notion of "Duty to Retreat"?