But the fact is, if we are going to shift (and yes AG Holder, it would be a shift) to an unconditional duty to retreat, have we not surrendered as a society? How is it not a surrender of personal sovereignty? How is it not a surrender of the right of personal property? How is it not a surrender of the right of personal protection? Because if we persist in the belief in the nobility of unconditional retreat, we embolden those who don’t care, and those who take what they want because they have no respect for a legal system that IS inherently unequal because those who act within it will constantly make excuses for their disrespect of it, while holding others to the standards that SHOULD be uniformly applied.
Retreat means that the law makes you a victim first, and seeks to punish you for not wanting to be come a statistic…a cooling body that police stand and make notes over, or someone who his handed a card for a theft/burglary case that the police don’t have resources to adequately investigate, and that prosecutors aren’t interested in actually prosecuting.
The crime here isn’t the surrender, its the acceptance of government’s contention that your reliance on it is noble, and that if (when) it fails to adequately protect you, it is because you haven’t surrendered enough to it. Not enough sovereignty. Not enough privacy. Not enough dignity.
If we don’t tell them “NO!” now, then we will be condemned to a gruesome half-life as thralls to an impossibly corrupt kleptocracy that we continue to indulge to our everlasting shame and at a very real peril.