New fad: laws that let you choose to shoot threats instead of walking away from them. These include threats to your safety or your property. The article does an excellent job of finding appalling examples.

I already blogged against defense of property rules in this now-defunct group blog when I was studying for torts.

Now let's talk about sexism. We learned in crim that men are more likely to fight back against attackers, and women are more likely to freeze up. The reason is part physiological, part sociological. This used to prejudice juries against victims in rape cases-- judges would say things about women having a duty to defend one's honor. Even where the "duty to resist" rule is dead, it's still a live prejudice. But the truth is, fighting back is a very male thing. (Yes, it's a generalization, but a well-researched one.)

So these new laws normalize pathologically aggressive behavior, thereby protecting men (and property-owning men at that!). What if Law worked this hard to protect the pathologically timid? We could finally criminalize men following women around at bars, chatting them up at the gym, and sending me emails about how "hard to read" I am because I don't make eye contact with them around school. I approve!