Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punkworld
Well, even assuming the reporter was entirely biased, and also misquoted the NRA, there's still the matter that any physical confrontation or possibility thereof can be perceived as a life-threatening situation, and that, therefore, they all warrant the use of "deadly force". So, no matter how biased the reporter may be, the argument stands.
|
That's just it, the article is somewhat confusing. That is NOT what the bills are saying. Many states already have laws like these in place (and have for a long time). These bills are targeting states where it is nearly impossible to claim self-defense as a reason for killing someone; not to make it legal to kill someone that starts a conflict with you (which is what the article makes it sound like).
From the article itself:
Quote:
|
LaPierre says the NRA is targeting 29 duty-to-retreat states where people can be prosecuted, sued or both if they don't retreat from criminal attacks
|