Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

analog · 10-07-2005, 01:18 AM

As usual, 8 other things besides the real issue are being brought into the context for no reason.

The issue is not if you can kill someone. The issue is not if "duty to retreat" is the opposite of "pursuing".

Before: If someone attacked you, you were required to extricate yourself from the situation and if, and ONLY if, you could not remove yourself from the altercation, could you then MATCH force to defend yourself. Even if you kicked the person in the shins in defense, you would have to have proved you could not get away from the attacker to justify that simple battery.

When it came down to it, you could only ever match force, this new law does nothing to change that. All it does is says you no longer HAVE TO try and run before defending yourself. So, now if someone kicks you in the shins, you can kick right back to defend yourself.

Everyone immediately wants to go to guns on this topic, but it has fuck all to do with guns, it has only to do with being required to try and run from the attack, vs. now you can defend yourself without first having to try to get away. You can now stand your ground if attacked. Simple, not complicated.

"You shall not stir one foot to seek a foe" - Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet... if the attacker attempts to exit, any further actions to pursue them on your part are now attack, and you will be held responsible for your actions.

I still have NO fucking clue why the hell london and chicago got pulled into this whole bullshit mess of a thread. Totally irrelevant.

There's just no need to complicate matters, and that's all that seems to be happening in this thread.

10-07-2005, 01:18 AM	#43 (permalink)
analog Banned	As usual, 8 other things besides the real issue are being brought into the context for no reason. The issue is not if you can kill someone. The issue is not if "duty to retreat" is the opposite of "pursuing". Before: If someone attacked you, you were required to extricate yourself from the situation and if, and ONLY if, you could not remove yourself from the altercation, could you then MATCH force to defend yourself. Even if you kicked the person in the shins in defense, you would have to have proved you could not get away from the attacker to justify that simple battery. When it came down to it, you could only ever match force, this new law does nothing to change that. All it does is says you no longer HAVE TO try and run before defending yourself. So, now if someone kicks you in the shins, you can kick right back to defend yourself. Everyone immediately wants to go to guns on this topic, but it has fuck all to do with guns, it has only to do with being required to try and run from the attack, vs. now you can defend yourself without first having to try to get away. You can now stand your ground if attacked. Simple, not complicated. "You shall not stir one foot to seek a foe" - Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet... if the attacker attempts to exit, any further actions to pursue them on your part are now attack, and you will be held responsible for your actions. I still have NO fucking clue why the hell london and chicago got pulled into this whole bullshit mess of a thread. Totally irrelevant. There's just no need to complicate matters, and that's all that seems to be happening in this thread.