Pffft, what a crappy grip on the revolver. Is that to be scary/omnious to the Eloi that read TIME?
Weak.
the past couple of years, another trend has taken root, too: the expansion of the so-called Castle Doctrine, a legal theory enshrined in common law. It is used to justify deadly force in the defense of one's home, although it's usually interpreted to include a duty to try to avoid confrontation if one can.
What morons. TIME is so discombobulated that they do not understand this.
"Castle Doctrine" was an exception to the common law's duty to retreat before dead force was applied. No duty to retreat inside one's domicile.
The duty to retreat has been the minority position for a very long time.
But in the past three years, the National Rifle Association has encouraged states to write the doctrine into statute, without imposing the attendant obligation to flee for safety. Many have done so, including Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi and South Dakota.
Indiana, and many other states, had no obligation to retreat. Indiana abolished the duty to retreat in 1865 via an Indiana Supreme Court decision.
All that these states did was to codify existing law.
In 2007, Texas took things a step farther, and expanded its law to protect shooters who act in self-defense or act to stop certain crimes anywhere the shooter has a legal right to be — such as at work, in his car or the like.
Ummm, yeah, that's the law in all states without a duty to retreat. But Texas and Florida have a lot of electoral votes and get a lot of attention from the East Coast Eloi.
TIME is, yet again, coming off as babbling morons. It's good to know that the opposition are retarded paper tigers.
