The concept of self-defense is terribly outdated in this day and age. At least that’s what Attorney General Eric Holder seems to believe.

Addressing the NAACP this afternoon, Holder, using the context of the Zimmerman trial, bemoaned the destruction resulting from citizens exercising their right to defend themselves:

https://twitter.com/BashirLive/status/357238016420495360

"Senselessly expand the concept of self-defense." Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you. — Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) July 16, 2013

"It's to question laws" that expand definition of self defense, Holder says. He's going after Stand Your Ground and similar laws. — Sunny (@sunnyright) July 16, 2013

And there it is, Holder says we must "reduce gun violence" in speech to NAACP in ref. to Zimmerman trial. Self defense isn't gun violence. — Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) July 16, 2013

For Holder, this was a perfect opportunity to rail against Florida’s Stand Your Ground legislation — despite the fact that SYG was never invoked by Zimmerman:

Again, Zimmerman trial not a Stand Your Ground case. Dislike the law, if you wish, but don't pretend it was part of this case. — Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) July 16, 2013

Is the left really going to try to make this about "stand your ground"? Zimmerman never invoked stand your ground. This is supreme idiocy. — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) July 16, 2013

NAACP crowd cheers when Holder talks about Stand Your Ground, clearly ignorant of fact Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with Zim trial — Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) July 16, 2013

It also afforded him a platform for his ridiculous contention that when faced in public with a potentially dangerous confrontation, the onus is on the victim:

Transcript:

“There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if — and the “if” is important — if no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the commonsense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat outside their homes if they can do so safely. By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety. The list of resulting tragedies is long, and unfortunately has victimized too many who are innocent. It is our collective obligation. We must stand our ground.”

How does that work, exactly?

I don't think there is a safe retreat available when your head is getting slamming into concrete, Mr. Holder — Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) July 16, 2013

Question: How do you "retreat" when the guy threatening you is on top of you and pummeling you? — Sunny (@sunnyright) July 16, 2013

Note to Holder: You can't retreat when someone is beating the sh*t out of you. — Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) July 16, 2013

Can someone explain how anyone is supposed to retreat while their head is being pounded into the concrete? Thanks. — RBe (@RBPundit) July 16, 2013

So now, potential victims are the enemy?

So now it's violent to defend yourself. The DHS gives their agents bean bag guns……. — Mary Chastain (@mchastain81) July 16, 2013

And they have a “duty to retreat”?

Whoa. Holder just said people should have a duty to retreat if they're threatened in public. — Sunny (@sunnyright) July 16, 2013

He used the words "duty to retreat". — Sunny (@sunnyright) July 16, 2013

So the Attorney General just said people being seriously physically threatened should have "duty to retreat" if they're in public. — Sunny (@sunnyright) July 16, 2013

Holder already fucked his agenda by labeling it "duty to retreat". Terrible, terrible name. — Sunny (@sunnyright) July 16, 2013

The alternative to "stand your ground" is "duty to retreat." Which puts burden on person defending him/herself to run or face prosecution. — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) July 16, 2013

So Holder's logic is that we must reduce violence by placing legal burden on you to run and hide if someone is trying to hurt you. — Sunny (@sunnyright) July 16, 2013

That's like saying the US could have contributed to world peace by not responding militarily to the 9/11 attacks. — Sunny (@sunnyright) July 16, 2013

Bravely running away may be Holder et al.’s M.O.:

Lead From Behind? RT @BuzzFeedBen: Holder making the case for a "duty to retreat," which maybe needs a more saleable name. — WhiteHousePressCorps (@whpresscorps) July 16, 2013

But that sort of twisted logic doesn’t work for those of us in the real world:

Few things more un-American than duty to retreat. If someone attempts to assault me or my family, WE have to attempt to get away? — Michele Frost (@michelelfrost) July 16, 2013

What about people who can't run or are in a wheelchair? Do they have a duty to retreat. Justice shouldn't be protecting thugs. #AG Holder — MFriedmanFan (@RiledEm) July 16, 2013

@piersmorgan So, if someone attacks me, I should have a legal duty to retreat? How's that fair? — Mr. Hand (@GrayerDreams) July 16, 2013