How can someone who believes in the right to self defense agree with this court decision?

I believe in the right to self defense and agree with the court decision. Right’s aren’t absolute. The freedom of speech doesn’t grant you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater. Duty to retreat is a long-standing legal principle. We want to discourage violence and only use it when there are no other alternatives.

Let’s be clear about what Blevins was charged with and what the decision actually says. Blevins was charged with felony second-degree assault-fear with a dangerous weapon on the grounds that after he pulled the weapon and caused his assailants to back off, he then continued to threaten them with violence even once the opportunity to retreat presented itself. In short, he is accused of going past the point of self-defense and instead escalating the situation after he had secured his personal safety (note that his armed assailant had put his weapon away).

I believe in the right to self-defense. I teach self-defense classes. But the first rule of self-defense is “don’t be there.” Escalating a situation is not self-defense. In fact, it is the opposite of self-defense since it increases the chances of the situation worsening. If the court had said that he had no right to draw his weapon in the first place, I would disagree with them. If the court said that he had no right to use his weapon to cause his assailants to back off, I would disagree with them. But that is not what they said. The court’s finding is that he does not get to turn a self-defense situation into one of assault-fear against his assailants.

This is a bad decision in my opinion. If you reasonably fear for your life or the life of another, you have the right to defend yourself or the other assaulted victim with like force including deadly force. I read the opinion. That court is moving backwards…........modern progressivism.

@SnipSnip You’ve got your flow of time backwards. Historically there was a duty to retreat:

“English common law was based on the sanctity of human life, and really the only person authorized to take a life was the King. In fact, if someone came after you, you were supposed to retreat to the “wall behind your back” before fighting back with force. That was called the duty to retreat.” (Source)

The stand-your-ground doctrine is a relatively new concept in US law (as I understand it).

Big 2A supporter and I agree with this one.

Stand Your Ground states like mine also have rules, too. Must dial 911 if you can, but they must be inside the home.

I’m reminded of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. We’ve had discussions on this site in the past about George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman was told by the dispatcher to stay in his car, yet he felt the need to get out of the car and confront Trayvon Martin, and ended up shooting Martin after Martin kicked his ass.

I can agree with this decision. Yes, you have the right to self defense. They are stating that the highest priority in self defense is to flee from the need to engage. That said, once they flee as a defense, if they are in continued fear because the attacker continues they then have the right to escalation.

If someone pulls a knife on you and you pull out a machete, shotgun or bazooka. If they run away; if you threaten – shoot the shotgun or bazooka – - that is not self-defense.

Also shooting them in the back three times qualifies as assault !

@SavoirFaire nailed this one well. Even the CBS story cited states that he was threatened and pulled out the machete and the assailants backed off. He then continued to wave it at them threatening them.

I’m a huge fan of the right to defend yourself and others, but I’m also a huge fan of personal control. It was probably that his adrenaline was high and he was on edge when he continued to wave the machete around. But that doesn’t make it okay. It’s never okay to be stupid when it comes to weapons.

@gorillapaws Well aware. Not necessary for my point.