Removing the duty to retreat and allowing the use of deadly force as a first option…makes killing easier. And look at which killings are being justified much more often. Allowing someone to kill someone when they fear being beaten up is a mistake. https://t.co/hcoYmBosOR
— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) November 26, 2021
Duty to retreat…duty to exhaust non-lethal measures…matters. These laws reward people who get themselves into trouble they can't handle. Even rittenhouse says he would do things differently if he could. https://t.co/cFY7AMQy4E
— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) November 26, 2021
Seems like someone was a fan of The Gulag Archipelago.
Solzhenitsyn was not supposed to be an inspiration, his books were a warning.
Keep on mind that Kyle Rittenhouse, who Cuomo talking about, did run away and was struck in the back and fell, which is why he defended himself with his gun.
Whatever standard Cuomo wants is beyond reasonable.
But it makes sense why he wants it his way. Both he and his brother are grab-assers. The last thing a man who likes to commit sexual assault wants is strong self defense laws.
Chris “Fredo” Cuomo doesn’t care. He will never be actually exposed to any real danger. He goes from his high security apartment building with 24/7 doormen in his limousine service to his network job in a secure office building with limited guarded access to the floors where his office and his studio are located.
You would think he might be concerned about all his staff and the secretaries, camera people, makeup artists and the like that he sees and works with every single day? Those middle class women and men have to venture out in the streets and take the dangerous crime ridden subway home to their homes or apartment buildings without doormen, without security, and surrounded by the homeless, the addicts, mentally ill, and just plain criminals. It is bad enough they have to be groped and abused by the Cuomo Brothers, the Matt Lauers, Jeffrey Toobins, and every other sexual deviant on TV News, but to hear their own boss doesn’t think they should defend themselves from being beaten, raped, and robbed must be sickening.
The Cuomos do not care. They are literally sons of privilege growing up with NY Governor Mario the Pious as a Father, and 24/7 security as a right. They may get stabbed by a jealous mistress or crazy prostitute, but they will never be mugged.
Until they mess with someone in their own caste. Even among the rich and powerful there are daddies who would relieve such predators of their genitals for harming their daughters and sons.
“Just take the beating” –Oh, that is so loathesome.
Not a lawyer, but familiar enough to say that self defense arguments cease to hold water when you have a clear avenue to retreat. The threat has to be imminent, real, and unavoidable. Prosecutors use that as a way to gain points with the anti-gun leftist crowd.
Idiots like Cuomo, etc… all seem to think that your average gun owner would rather kill another human being than simply walk away.
There’s a major difference between an avenue to retreat and a reasonable ability to retreat. Either way, SYG should prevail.
It must be sad to live in the hellhole you apparently inhabit, CBMTTek. I stood next a Texas cop as he explained to a peeping tom that I caught, that I can legally do anything I want to him, ANYTHING, when I catch him peeping in a neighbors window. I have retreated from a lot of shit over the years, but I do not have to back up for any asshole.
CB, that depends on the state. For example in NH the law says (RSA 627:4(3)(A):
A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or herself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he or she knows that he or she and the third person can, with complete safety:
(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he or she is not required to retreat if he or she is within his or her dwelling, its curtilage, or anywhere he or she has a right to be, and was not the initial aggressor;
So the Castle doctrine applies, and even in other places you only have to retreat if you know you (and any 3rd party threatened person) can retreat with complete safety. So the state has to prove not just that there was a way to retreat, but that you knew it and knew that you could use it “with complete safety”.
Consider the Rittenhouse case: it’s obvious to me that, if WI had used the same language (which apparently it does not), he obviously met those requirements in every case. He did retreat even when doing so was not clearly safe, and used deadly force only when retreat was no longer feasible. So all those liberal talking heads whining about “duty to retreat” are all wet; even if he had one it wouldn’t have changed the verdict.
Well, CBMTTek, as with soul mates like Alec Baldwin, projection is A Thing.