Actually, Ken, I suspect you are man enough that you wouldn't feel the need to confront someone unless you really had no retreat. For instance, if you were the one who had seen Trayvon Martin, I suspect he would still be eating skittles. I suspect your threshold for feeling threatened is higher than many.
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
"But ... It's ALWAYS about "Cases," isn't it ... ???"
You are right. It is always about cases. But the basic thing is that no one should be required to run away and no one should be penalized for not running away...it is just that simple in my opinion. And again , it is about individual casesA
***I agree that people have the right to defend themselves, but I don't think people, should be allowed to instigate a confrontation and still be able to claim self-defense. The law has caused what I believe to be some patently stupid judicial decisions such as:
People often go free under "stand your ground" in cases that seem to make a mockery of what lawmakers intended. One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free.Link