|
I skimmed through this thread so maybe my question has already been answered:
Have there been many situations where either someone who could have attacked first in a threatening situation but decided to make attempts to avoid the situation was injured? Or have there been many situations where someone was attacked and had to defend themselves with force and was then found guilty of excessive force?
If the answer is no to both of these questions, I cannot wrap my head around WHY this legislation could possibly be considered a good thing. It essentially says that fighting is better than avoidance. Every rational person knows that is nonsense.
|