Found another article on Minnesota’s Castle Doctrine.
Currently, Minnesota law authorizes the use of deadly force, without an obligation to retreat, when done to prevent the commission of a felony in a person’s home. When not in his or her home, a person can rightfully use deadly force to avert a threat of death or great bodily harm to themselves or another, provided the person first attempts to avoid the danger if reasonably possible. In all situations, Minnesota law properly requires that the response be reasonable and necessary given the gravity of the danger faced.
The proposed changes would eliminate the duty to retreat before exercising the right of self-defense in all locations and permit a person to meet force with superior force, including deadly force, if the individual reasonably believes such force is needed to resist or prevent the imminent infliction of substantial bodily harm, great bodily harm or death. This proposal creates a presumption that deadly force can be used against someone who enters a dwelling by force or stealth, and it expands the definition of dwelling to include decks, porches, fenced-in areas, tents, other structures, and occupied watercraft and motor vehicles.
Sounds pretty good to me. How about you?
Such a law would, in essence, allow people to shoot first and ask questions later whenever they believe they are exposed to substantial harm, regardless of how a reasonable person would have responded under the circumstances. If this proposal were to be enacted, there would be numerous examples of situations where the law would allow an individual to shoot and kill in self-defense, even though a reasonable person would never have done so.
OK first up let’s dive off into the waters of Hollywood. I’m doing this because reasonable people think of self-defense situations, and many of us see things in Hollywood movies that are totally over the top.
Have you EVER seen a scene in a Hollywood movie where the person was asking questions first BEFORE they shot them and had that NOT been murder?
Have you ever imagined such a situation when preparing for a self-defense scenario?
Yeah me neither.
Do we really want to allow a driver who believes he is being threatened with substantial harm in a road-rage incident to shoot and kill the other driver, rather than calling 911 or simply driving away?
Do we really want the law to presume that a homeowner has the right to shoot and kill an unarmed person who has entered a garage to steal a bicycle or other personal property, without first calling the police?
Do we really want to authorize the use of deadly force in response to a push, punch or verbal threat without any inquiry as to whether a reasonable person would have done so under the circumstances?
Hey, you know if I run you off the road with my truck, that could indeed kill you. And you can’t always drive away.
(I think that video may be staged, but its not unrealistic that this COULD happen…do you think the aggressor isn’t justifying lethal force?)
I’ve lived in several houses where the garage is the BEST way in. Some people don’t lock their house door from the Garage, so if you’re in the garage, you’re in the house. Even if the internal door is locked they have a concealed location to force entry.
And if your garage is a separate structure, and you encounter a thief, you may have cornered a criminal. Tell me that’s a safe place to be unarmed!
And from the “Gun Death?” Files I think we can see where punches, shoves can go, and think about what “Verbal Threats” could be. How about “I’m going to kill you mo’fugger!” as they reach into their coat. We obviously need to wait to see if he’s just foolin’ or not, right? That’s totally the smart thing to do.
Oh BTW there’s also an easy way to avoid this: Don’t threaten, attack, or steal things! Don’t do that, and you don’t get shot. Its EASY too, I do it EVERY DAY!
Also by all means call 911, but its wise to back your safety up with a loaded gun.
Still if you CAN think, its pretty obvious this is a good law. If you can’t think, you’re likely anti-gun.
“Do we really want to authorize the use of deadly force in response to a push, punch or verbal threat without any inquiry as to whether a reasonable person would have done so under the circumstances?”
So, in her world, we should engage in polite questioning as to the motives of the intruder or aggressor before defending ourselves? Some says that they are going to kill me and then start towards me….I should wait until they actually attempt to kill me, especially after they break into my home?
Ok, then.
Backstrom is a political clown in the backpocket of the local Brady’s. These are the same tired catchphrases and logic he used last year.
My new favorite is how this bill will somehow lead to more police dying — even though it has nothing to do with shooting a police officer (which is still illegal).
Supposedly this is to be heard on the Senate floor this week — should make for an amusing watch.
…and we already have Castle Doctrine codified. The problem was that it only covers your residence – not garage, RV, boat, car, yard, etc…
This is more of a “Stand Your Ground” type of legislation which removes the duty to retreat in the face of death or great bodily harm when you’re legally authorized to be where you are. It covers a whole lot more areas than Castle Doctrine, and gives much more protection to the legal carrier.
Part of the problem getting it passed, though, Pat, is that many LEO chiefs who are against this type of bill actually use their officer’s safety in their argument. All I can say in response is that MY safety is more important than the officer’s, and if he doesn’t want to be shot at, then change professions or be more sensible in when he stops people, or invades their homes.
Also I wonder how many actual cops are against this, vs. political appointees which Chiefs are.
“Reasonable.”
They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
When the Brady Bunch fantasize about that film, you know they’re thinking, “My name is Sarah Brady. You killed my Assault Weapons Ban. Prepare to die.”
Of course, when they see how things are going, they just end up saying “No more guns now, I mean it!”
“Don’t threaten, attack, or steal things! Don’t do that, and you don’t get shot. Its EASY too, I do it EVERY DAY!”
Oughta be on a T-shirt.
Do we really want to allow a driver who believes he is being threatened with substantial harm in a road-rage incident to shoot and kill the other driver, rather than calling 911 or simply driving away? YES
Do we really want the law to presume that a homeowner has the right to shoot and kill an unarmed person who has entered a garage to steal a bicycle or other personal property, without first calling the police? YES
Do we really want to authorize the use of deadly force in response to a push, punch or verbal threat without any inquiry as to whether a reasonable person would have done so under the circumstances? YES
Any further questions?
So I should wait for them to hurt me or my family before I shoot them? I think I’ll take my chances with a jury instead. It also could be a cop issue, the way the cops are kicking in the wrong doors these days leads to them being shot. Anyone can yell police when they kick in the door. Maybe they should knock first.
KILL YOU! You need to wait for them to KILL YOU before you fight back. Its the only way to be sure!