In the aftermath of the Zimmerman trial, we're hearing a lot about Stand Your Ground laws. The common understanding is that under Stand Your Ground, a person has no duty to retreat in the face of violence. That person can meet force with force. The law didn't apply to Zimmerman, who was on his back being beaten when he fired the shot. He had no where to retreat. His back was literally to the ground.
Still, the left wants something done, and Stand Your Ground seems to them to be a place to start. Under their scenario as I understand it, if I'm in a place where I have a legal right to be and I am faced with violence, I should first try to retreat from that violence before resorting to force. That's all well and good, but I shouldn't be forced to retreat as a matter of law. Retreat should be one trick in my bag of options, but not one that the law prescribes. If retreat is prescribed then the question becomes; how far should I retreat to meet the legal standard? One step? Two steps? What is the requirement? Or, why should I, a law-abiding citizen, be forced to retreat at all? It opens another can of worms that should never have been opened.
Self defense is a natural right, one that applies to the animals in the wild as surely as it applies to humans in whatever predicament we might find ourselves. I have the same right to protect myself as the animals on the veld. No legislator can legislate it away, it is a natural right.
Hat tip to DougM at SondraK.com