Joan Peterson Duluth News Tribune
On Feb. 23, the Minnesota Senate passed a bill to allow the use of deadly force to kill another human being. This is codifying a right to kill and is not — as the Feb. 24 article, “Senate passes bill expanding self-defense rights,” states — about self-defense.
Minnesota law already allows people to defend themselves in their homes without the duty to retreat. What this bill does is allows anyone to shoot another in homes and on our streets if there is a presumption of a threat.
A little skewed, but that’s true, and sounds fair. Not to Joan, because she doesn’t believe people should defend themselves until people die. And of course if people die, the gun didn’t do anybody much good, so ban them.
I think all reasonable people are willing to take a death treat or an assault on its word. My life is worth it! Is yours? How about your family?
But now the Evil:
My sister was shot to death in a domestic shooting 20 years ago. My late ex-brother-in-law stated he felt threatened by my sister and her friend, who were unarmed and came to his home to deliver paperwork during a contentious divorce proceeding. If this law were in place, he could have claimed self-defense and gotten away with murdering two people.
This is simply evil. Joan is bringing up her sister’s death, and lying about it for the sake of her agenda. Go re-read Sean’s great post on the Barbara Lund Murder. We have a couple involved in a divorce. The killer in this case was a man with a history of mental illness, was the subject of a fraud investigation, a history of a violent temper, and I would not be surprised if Joan knew about prior physical abuse against her sister at the hands of her husband…but of course she’s been silent about this. AND Mr. Lund was the subject of a protection order, which not only discredits a castle doctrine defense, but also makes him using a firearm a felony.
And of course the end result of this case was Mr. Lund committed suicide in a Mental Hospital while awaiting a psychiatric evaluation. So he was never convicted in any crimes in relation to the murders, or weapons possession.
This is blood-dancing, and Joan should be ashamed, and her family should be outraged!
And of course that isn’t enough, he had to double down.
St. Louis County Attorney Mark Rubin wrote to senators about the case of Duluth police officer Gary Wilson, shot to death in 1990 when while responding to an armed-assault call. Wilson was shot through a Seaway Hotel room door because the suspect claimed he thought Wilson was one of the men who followed him home from the bar. Could he have claimed self-defense under this proposed law?
You can claim anything you want. You can claim that you ran over a 10-year-old-girl in a crosswalk because she had a shotgun and threatened to kill you. But like all lethal self defense cases there is ALWAYS a homicide investigation. Sometimes the investigation involves hauling away the violent felon with a massive arrest record’s body away and asking the 80 year old women with the vintage M&P Revolver if she has a place she can spend the night until they can get somebody to repair her shattered door. In other cases there is a LOT of leads that need to be followed.
Shooting a Police officer through the wall/door of a locked hotel room as they identify themselves as police officers is a pretty tough sell.
Also no word, but the guy had spent the night at a bar where there was a shooting. No word if he was drunk at the time of the shooting. I’d bet my lunch money, and that also stinks in a self-defense case.
This is not about the Second Amendment or self-defense. This is about an agenda proposed by the increasingly extreme National Rifle Association. Please tell Gov. Mark Dayton to veto this bad bill.
Joan A. Peterson
The writer is co-president of the Northland Chapter of the Brady Campaign and a board member of the Brady Campaign/Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
I put that last part in for those of your who live in Minnesota. If you live there, call the governor! Call him TODAY! Call him now. Evil people are trying to convince him that somehow this somehow legalizes murder.
When a good person is attacked or threatened they SHOULD get the benefit of the doubt and be protected from civil punishments. The other side is on the side of the monsters. Don’t let them win!
