Explore posts in the same categories: Iran,
Iraq,
non-interventionism,
property rights
This entry was posted
on November 18, 2007 at 6:45 am and is filed under Iran, Iraq, non-interventionism, property rights.
You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments.
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
November 18, 2007 at 1:42 pm
All of these rules were delicately developed through the common law system. Excellent principles.
November 18, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Not all states have the requirement to try and retreat in the face of a real threat. Texas and Florida are 2 examples.
This is critical as the difference between life and death in these situations can often be measured in milliseconds, reactions must be without hesitation, regular training is essential.
The time that it takes to attempt to retreat may be all that it takes to become a victim.
A sovereign nation cannot retreat when the imminent threat is on it’s border.
November 18, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Good point, Alan, and well said.
From my perspective, “avoiding or exiting” the hostile situation is not possible if the threat shows hostile intent and is within range to project lethal force (i.e. with a weapon). If he’s just standing there threatening to hit me, though, it’s much less trouble to just walk away.
But if someone tells me he’s going to attack me at the bike rack after school, it’s prudent to avoid the situation and just not show up.
I agree 100% with your comment regarding a threat on the border — a sovereign nation must actively defend its borders based upon the Castle Doctrine. If our borders are under attack, no retreat is necessary, or appropriate.