What's wrong with "duty to retreat"

[TPaine7]

20. It's right in front of your eyes.

Show me where in "a duty to retreat" you are legally required to obey a criminal. It only requires you to take an opening to get away if there is one before you use deadly force.

Picture this (an application of duty to retreat at a public park):

You are enjoying a picnic lunch with your soon-to-be fiancée, complete with a gourmet lunch and a hidden ring.

A thug walks out of the trees and walks towards you, knife in hand. "Scram bitches" he yells.

You are legally armed, but you can safely retreat. Therefore, you have a duty to scram, just like the thug ordered you to. His words bear the force of law, just like a police officer.

With out a duty to retreat law Zimmerman now has a great case to get away with murder. Now if that kid was your kid and the police said the guy that murdered him claimed he felt threatened by him because a pack of skittles looked like a gun so we have to let him go, you'd agree with the law? Sure the cops fucked up, but only because of the SYG law they can claim there is nothing they can do.

If that were my kid I'd be furious. At Zimmerman and the cops.

"Duty to retreat", according to your source, requires you to prove your innocence, often without witnesses, to safe, comfortable, second-guessing jurors. Think about that.