Minnesota's controversial deadly force bill advances
Source: Reuters
(Reuters) - A Minnesota bill that could be sent to the governor next week would sharply expand the circumstances under which people can use deadly force when they feel threatened, a measure that law enforcement groups call a recipe for getting away with murder.
Democratic Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton has not said whether he will sign or veto the measure advanced by the Republican majority state Senate and House when it gets to him.
Under the proposal, "If you are anywhere you can legally be, you can defend yourself against a criminal," said Republican Senator Gretchen Hoffman, the Senate sponsor. "If I am on the street ... and I feel imminent danger of physical harm, I should be able to act with equal or greater force."
Several state law enforcement groups opposed the measure, including the vast majority of the 300-plus members of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/25/us-minnesota-deadlyforce-idUSTRE81O0QJ20120225
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)SHOOT IT!
Edweird
(8,570 posts)Predictions of blood filled gutters clogged with knee deep entrails abounded - which proved to be not only incorrect, but comically the opposite of the actual outcome.
Police officers are more like 'reporters with guns' than 'your personal bodyguard'.
1620rock
(2,218 posts)Edweird
(8,570 posts)
pasto76
(1,589 posts)seems a little harsh.
The problem with bills like this is that the amount of drama/hysteria that is acceptable to Americans these days is not a mindset that should include firearms.
"I feel threatened", it too subjective.
Hostile Act, Hostile Intent (protected property or personnel doesnt seem to fit in here) are the only circumstances to deploy lethal force. Not somebody laying on a horn in traffic.
boppers
(16,588 posts)
existentialist
(2,190 posts)I think of The Far Side cartoon where a deputy sheriff with a smoking gun is standing over the person he just shot, and asking:
"What's the capital of Afghanistan?"
"How many acres in a section of land?"
"Who was George Washington's Vice-President?"
And the sheriff is coming into the corner of the panel saying:
"No, No, Bert. I keep telling you can't shoot first and ask questions later."
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Is that correct?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)If the situation in Minnesota is anything like it is here in California, police chiefs are politicians who are motivated by money and power. Regular police officers here are far more supportive of the public's right to self-defense than are their chiefs.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Neue Regel
(221 posts)No, we don't accuse the rank and file police officers of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Those duties are usually reserved for prosecutors offices, gun grabbing groups, and upper management within the ranks of the police.
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)the fact that the "justifiable homicide" rate has gone up 300% since the law's enactment must mean it's a success.
There are many things about Florida's Stand Your Ground law that make me ill.
barbtries
(28,799 posts)how can anyone call this successful.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)How can anyone call that a legitimate concern? I call it gerb-chibble.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Let's see some proof.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)They got away with it for a while. But later were caught.
Look it up yourself
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)
primavera
(5,191 posts)... of the 31,347 gun deaths in the US in 2009 were considered lawful? Kind of like that?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The intellectually challenging part is making it produce numbers that are relevant to a particular discussion.
barbtries
(28,799 posts)chibble.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)I want to see how long it takes to come up in a Google search.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Do you have LOTS of mentally ill friends that want looser gun laws?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)I guess you're unable to carry on a civil conversation. Good day.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)You are a person advocating looser gun laws.
And? Then you yourself suggest that you are around and like as friends, many persons of bad judgement.
barbtries
(28,799 posts)it'll take you straight to DU
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 26, 2012, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)
Google indexes neologisms with glabornious speed and efficiency.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...protection for people who defend themselves.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)Wearing an Oakland Raiders jacket could get you legally shot. Or walking while black. Even getting cut off in traffic or an argument in a bar. It doesn't look like it needs to be a rational fear, only to "feel imminent danger". For some people my examples would qualify as self-defense.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)See http://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1467.2.html&session=ls87
You may be surprised.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)You hear a strange sound in your kitchen at night; you go down with a gun, see an intruder, and shoot him.
Then your daughter says, "where's my boyfriend?"
You hear a strange sound in the kitchen at night; you go down with a gun; you see a strange inintruder and shoot him. Then your wife shows up and says, "where's my brother? He came in last night after you went to bed"
The more safe you feel about shooting people? The more acccidents like this are likely to occur.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Let's see some actual evidence to back that up.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)DallasNE
(7,403 posts)A jury must ponder when deliberating as "the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were not justifiable". Is there a community standard for "reasonable belief" and what if someone was raised in a different community with a different standard. One can envision more hung juries when there is a blend of different communities represented on a jury.
As near as I can see this makes offensive action legal in the name of defense. Otherwise there is no purpose in enacting additional law. Also, what case do they think was wrongly decided under existing law. I don't see where a case has been made for upsetting the applecart in this manner.
Oneka
(653 posts)yes for some people they would.
The state of Minnesota would then have the ability to investigate, that example, make a judgement and charge the actor with a crime if appropriate. This situation is very similar, to the way it works now, however, the onus changes to the State to prove that the actor acted in a manner, other than self defense, whereas now, the actor has to admit to committing a crime,before having the ability to use a defense of, self defense.
I personally believe in the time honored legal tenet of, innocent until proven guilty especially, in situations where folks feel the
need to defend themselves from criminals.
spin
(17,493 posts)after the "Stand Your Ground" passed?
Let me assure you that in Florida if there is any suspicion that you shot someone in a public area outside your home without having a damn good reason to believe that the individual was attacking you with the intent of seriously injuring or killing you, you will face a tough investigation and quite possibly will be prosecuted.
I would suggest you read the article at the link below which will describe how the law works in reality. It was written by Eric Matheny who is a criminal defense attorney in the Miami Dade area of Florida. The article fairly describes incidents in which the law will probably protect the shooter and incidents in which he may face prosecution. I would post an excerpt but it is difficult to understand the argument when limited to four paragraphs.
Stand Your Ground: An Absolute Defense in the State of Florida
http://www.ericmathenylaw.com/Criminal-Defense-Blog/2010/April/Stand-Your-Ground-An-Absolute-Defense-in-the-Sta.aspx
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)to allow someone to pull a gun? Or maybe "He made eye contact with me"? Or "His coat was so baggy he could have had a gun in there"? What kind of "threat" are we talking about? Physical harm? Verbal assault? How about if someone makes a pass at you? Is that a "threat"? What if he is carrying a baseball bat? Is he considered "armed"? Or if he is really buff, is his body a "lethal weapon"?
What if you are suffering for PTSD and every fucking thing in the world "scares" you , does this new law mean that you can shoot first and ask questions later as long as you can say truthfully "I felt threatened?"
This law will be abused by people who want to commit murder. All they have to do is kill and then claim they were "threatened." The people who kill the homeless will find it much easier to pursue their favorite pasttime. Lynching will be legal again. It will be open season on gays on the grounds that "I thought he was gonna rape me. Really. So I killed him."
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)It's open season on human beings, hunters! Here's some good changes and places, to shoot some folks dead:
"1.6outside the home; expanding the boundaries of dwelling for purposes of
1.7self-defense; creating a presumption in the case of a person unlawfully entering a
1.8dwelling or occupied vehicle by stealth or force;"
It's open season for anyone breaking into a building? So if it's cold, and you're just trying to get in to get warm? You're dead meat. - HF 1467
Can't WAIT till my mother-in-law tries to get in without a key again!
So far the number of abuses are not huge; but its only a matter of time. So GET IN EARLY!
Yahhooooo! Bang! BANg!
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)Here is the text of the bill:
4.26 Subd. 2. Circumstances when authorized. (a) The use of deadly force by an
4.27individual is justified under this section when the act is undertaken:
4.28(1) to resist or prevent the commission of a felony in the individual's dwelling;
4.29(2) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is an offense or
4.30attempted offense that imminently exposes the individual or another person to substantial
4.31bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death; or
4.32(3) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is the commission or
4.33imminent commission of a forcible felony.
4.34(b) The use of deadly force is not authorized under this section if the individual
4.35knows that the person against whom force is being used is a licensed peace officer from
5.1this state, another state, the United States, or any subordinate jurisdiction of the United
5.2States, who is acting lawfully.
I am not speaking for or against this law. I am posting this to note the societal standards invoked by the words "reasonable."
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)You see a dark shape in your living room ... going through your wife's purse! You aim and shoot. The dark shape slumps to the floor, dead.
Then your wife says: where's my mother? She came in late last nite looking for her ID. I told her I found it and put it in my purse.
The more gun-happy you make folks, the more of these mistakes we see.
As the courts confirm.
The easier you make gun laws, the more you encourage their use in "self-defense," the more of these accidental deaths we see.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The judge's instructions are likely to include a clear explanation of the concept of reasonableness, which may surprise you.
The easier you make gun laws, the more you encourage their use in "self-defense," the more of these accidental deaths we see.
Deaths from accidental shootings in the US have been on a long-term decline for at least 10 years.
Year Number of
Deaths Population*** Crude
Rate Age-Adjusted
Rate**
1999 824 279,040,181 0.30 0.29
2000 776 281,421,906 0.28 0.27
2001 802 285,081,556 0.28 0.28
2002 762 287,803,914 0.26 0.26
2003 730 290,326,418 0.25 0.25
2004 649 293,045,739 0.22 0.22
2005 789 295,753,151 0.27 0.27
2006 642 298,593,212 0.22 0.21
2007 613 301,579,895 0.20 0.20
2008 592 304,374,846 0.19 0.19
2009 554 307,006,550 0.18 0.18
Total 7,733 3,224,027,368 0.24
Sorry about the munched up table. Roll your own query from CDC data at WISQARS:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)HTH
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Look up the phrase "ability, opportunity, jeopardy".
DebJ
(7,699 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...of their use, and I recommend that every person get some self-defense training whether or not it involves weapons.
Any decent firearm self-defense class, or an edged-weapons class, or even an empty-hand self defense class, teaches that you use deadly force only as a last resort, when you really have no other alternate course of action that is likely to achieve the desired result - Stopping a potentially injurious or deadly attack.
The classes I have taken (including edged weapons and basic handgun) have all taught that there are three fights in most situations that involve defensive use of force:
- The first fight is the one between you and an attacker, which hopefully you win.
- The second fight is defending your actions against criminal prosecution. Lose this and you may go to prison.
- The third fight is the lingering effects the incident has on your life, including civil lawsuits, attacks by friends and family members of the person you used force against, and how the community you live in treats you going forward.
Your state of mind at the time of the defensive action (the first fight) is crucial to your survival of the second and third fights. The way you act and everything you say can potentially get you in deeper and deeper trouble as the police investigation proceeds and words gets out to other people.
Shooting someone is literally the last thing you want to do. The point of explicitly removing the duty to retreat from Minnesota law (and bringing it in line with the laws of almost every other state in that regard) will serve to protect people who were put in the unfortunate situation of having to defend themselves, from needless protracted post-hoc analysis of every detail of the situation in which they found themselves.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein;
Anyone who breaks into an occupied building is taking a risk of getting shot by the people who are inside.
...So if it's cold, and you're just trying to get in to get warm? You're dead meat....
I suggest that the proper manner for a person to address that situation would be to knock on the front door and politely ask for shelter if someone answers.
...Can't WAIT till my mother-in-law tries to get in without a key again!...
It's unfortunate that you have such low regard for your mother-in-law, but in practice no jury would consider you shooting her in that kind of situation to be a reasonable act. The law would not protect you from prosecution, unless she kicked the door in while carrying a running chainsaw or something.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)You hear a strange sound in your kitchen at night; confident about your new gun right, you go down with a gun, see an intruder who seems to be going through your daughter's purse; you shoot him, and he falls to the ground, dead.
Then your daughter says, "where's my boyfriend? He came in after you went to bed."
You hear a strange sound in the kitchen at night; you go down with a gun; you see a strange in intruder and shoot him. Then your wife shows up and says, "where's my brother? He came in last night after you went to bed"
The more safe people feel about shooting people? The more acccidents like this are likely to occur.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Probably the main factor? Increasingly, people feel less and less pro-guns; especially in CA. And though the laws are slacker, they are less enclined to shoot anyway.
It's not because of your law; it is in spite of it.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)So that's entirely abourt subjective perception; not objective facts.
While? Your final graph is about background checks. Which have gone up. But meanwhile, its ALSO as easy as ever to buy a gun off the books; witness number of guns showing up south of the border.
Your reasoning is subjective, and well ... "slack."
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)When you are confronted with facts that challenge the unfounded fears you present here, you dodge and weave. When challenged to present facts, you present nothing.
While? Your final graph is about background checks. Which have gone up.
Which is strong evidence that lawful sales of new guns have gone up, steadily, over the last 10 years.
Your reasoning is subjective, and well ... "slack."
You haven't presented any reasoning in this thread at all. Only unfounded fears of things that you think MIGHT happen, and you ignore overwhelming evidence from other states, including California, that those things DON'T actually happen when the law is changed to protect legitimate use of force for self-defense. Basic castle doctrine laws similar to the Minnesota bill under discussion here have been in place in most states for decades.
Where's the beef, Brettongarcia?
Oneka
(653 posts)So if someone is on my deck at 3:00am and throws one of these 
through my deck door,then walks through, i am supposed to somehow ascertain his/her intent before i protect my family?
I'm cold, is no better excuse to break into my house,with force, than, "i am going rape your wife and daughter, then kill them while i make you watch". either way my house is broken into, it is then my choice, and not the person breaking in, how i deal with that threat. This law codifies that sentiment ,quite nicely.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)It's not good to be too "trigger happy" as they used to call it. Sometimes you end up shooting the wrong person.
that it is not always good to be too, trigger happy. But i should never have to be put into a situation where i have to admit to committing a crime, to avail myself of a self defense, defence, for defending my home and family. This law codifies that sentiment,
it places the onus on the state to prove that my actions were not consistent with self defense,whereas now i have to admit to a crime then hope a DA, doesn't charge me or a , jury doesn't convict me, if i choose to use self defense as a defense.
Your example above seems like a good one, except that it happens so infrequently in states with castle doctrine laws, as to be statistically irrelevant. your example is also irrelevant to a huge portion of the population who have no mother-in-law's, my former mother-in-law was shot and killed in Dec. of 2009, very trajic.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Good first point.
Second? Sorry about your mother in law.
Oneka
(653 posts)It's allways tough when a loved one dies, even more so when they die in an unexpected and violent way.
My wife , who was also shot during this incident, is still working through her grief.
My mother-in-law's husband was also shot and killed at the same time, it bothers me to know that, had i been there i could have changed the outcome of the whole mess, and at the same time terrifies me that, if faced with a similar situation, i would have to live with my actions.
I think most folks who carry, for defensive purposes, feel similar to what i just described, even though we are often portrayed as bloodthirsty villains just looking for trouble.
I hope that more and more people realize, that most of us gun owner/carriers just want to be left alone, but also don't feel like we have to be victims, at the mercy of criminals, if violence should ever visit us or our families.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)And/or police case numbers? So we can cite your example?
You seem to have a lot to say that is relevant. And many others need to know your story.
Oneka
(653 posts)outing my personal information to this entire board? no.
Feel free to believe or disbelieve that story as you wish.
This is a large online community , and the rhetoric here in gets incredibly divisive, to sometimes , outright nasty, i see no need
to invite that divisiveness, directly into my family life.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)This piece of crap law is about making it easier to kill some who happens to be walking past your car, your tent, your boat, "your" piece of the sidewalk. So the nervous nelly gun nuts will have a much easier time, not having to consider if that shape in the dark is someone walking down the road to their own camp site or not. Much easier to just be able to open fire on a perceived threat, no thought requried.
We should not be passing laws that make it easier to kill people and we should be ignoring the very vocal people with fancy graphs. The profit motive in this is to arm everyone and there's littlr doubt that industry money is flowing all over the place.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
DFW
(54,407 posts)This means that if I should walk into a convention of Minnesota Republicans and feel threatened,
I can start to throw hand grenades and shoot firearms until I feel no more danger? That might
be justified under their new law, but it won't increase their ranks any................
Scruffy1
(3,256 posts)Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)Here is the text of the bill:
4.26 Subd. 2. Circumstances when authorized. (a) The use of deadly force by an
4.27individual is justified under this section when the act is undertaken:
4.28(1) to resist or prevent the commission of a felony in the individual's dwelling;
4.29(2) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is an offense or
4.30attempted offense that imminently exposes the individual or another person to substantial
4.31bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death; or
4.32(3) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is the commission or
4.33imminent commission of a forcible felony.
4.34(b) The use of deadly force is not authorized under this section if the individual
4.35knows that the person against whom force is being used is a licensed peace officer from
5.1this state, another state, the United States, or any subordinate jurisdiction of the United
5.2States, who is acting lawfully.
There is nothing wrong with criticizing the bill. There are things in the bill already available to criticize. We don't need to invent false things to criticize. There is something wrong with that.
Response to Gore1FL (Reply #18)
Tesha This message was self-deleted by its author.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Your fears are unfounded.
197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)He would be a rich and successful lawyer.
Why is this more of a problem in MN and not other states where it is already implemented? Is "reasonable" a different standard in MN? Are Juries dumber? Lawyers more convincing?
The OP of this subthread suggested that a mall killing spree would be OK under this bill. I don't think there is a state in the union where a jury would consider that reasonable.
There are legitimate issues in this bill to criticize. There is no need to create make-believe issues.
Oneka
(653 posts)Current Mn Statues says:
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.065
Where was that new loophole again?
Response to Oneka (Reply #57)
Tesha This message was self-deleted by its author.
Oneka
(653 posts)DallasNE
(7,403 posts)"Reasonable belief" is a whole new ball game that allows offensive action. It also expands where this so-called self-defense can be invoked. It's like someone else said, this is a solution looking for a problem as they don't cite one case where they think current law caused someone to be wrongly convicted. Pat Buchanan could have in his mind a reasonable belief that a black man in his white neighborhood was about to commit a crime so he would be justified in gunning him down under this new, permissive language.
And these are the same people that want to outlaw contraception. That is some belief system they have.
Oneka
(653 posts)"Reasonable belief" is a whole new ball game that allows offensive action.
Current Mn Statues says:
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
{emphasis my own}
http://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.065
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101460604
above is the current Mn statute on JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
Looks to me like "reasonable belief" is allready codified into existing MN statute, how is this a whole new ballgame again?
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)1) Ideas of what is "reasonable" change.
2) While the allowance to "prevent" things, in the present wording to be sure, seems problematic. It see seems separate from any consideration of whether the expectation there is something to prevent, is reasonable or not.: we can use "reason" "OR" prevention.
To be sure? "Reasonable" is enconced in our Legal system at all levels.
The more dangerous possibility, the loophole, is a semantic odditiy here in this draft. That might allow "prevention," without being "reasonable" at all.
SUGGESTING A CHANGE OF WORDING in this bill: Here we need "Reason" AND prevention. Not reason "or" prevention.
Oneka
(653 posts)Current Mn statute uses both "reasonable" and "prevent" in much the same way that the new statute would use them. Very little changes on either of those two grounds with this new bill.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)What seems to have changed for sure though, is the publicity-driven climate of eagerness to get those guns - and start blasting.
And what is the result? According to data cited above, we're seeing 1) a 300% increase in "justifiable homicide." While yet to be fully uncovered, is my major concern here: the exact 2) number of new cases, in which individuals take guns, and law and order, into their own hands, and kill ... innocent people.
Though deaths from guns overall are declining, I expect that this particular sub-category, will be taking a sudden, dramatic increase.
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)a peach of a case that's going on in Tampa Bay. Apparently, the local neighborhood buttinski took offense at some kid skateboarding on a basketball court so he decided he was going to take care of it. Old Mr Dooley grabbed his shootin' iron (natch) and marched across the park and confronted the kid. Needless to say, not everyone was impressed with Old Man Dooley's attitude (gun or no gun) and an argument ensued between him and a 41 year old father playing with his daughter.
Long story short-Dooley started flashing his weapon (remember, this is at a park full of kids), Mr. David James took umbrage and tried to disarm him, Dooley shot him point blank, Dooley cried "Stand Your Ground", the state said "not this time" and charged him with manslaughter.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/hearing-in-stand-your-ground-case-draws-to-a-close/1216939
The article also reports of the tripling of justifiable homicides since the law went into effect.
As wacky as Florida is, I'm surprised he was even charged.
Oneka
(653 posts)more and more of these laws being passed, and the resulting deaths will be tragic.
Most people in this country are basically good people and NEVER want to live with the fact that they were forced to kill someone
to protect their families or themselves, i know i sure don't. Limiting the tools and avenues of self defense only empowers those
criminals who would prey on normal every day good people, liberalizing gun laws over the last 25 or so years, is certainly not the only
reason that violent crime rates are going down, but it seems to me that is a solid tool to reducing crime.
Justifiable homicide while tragic , is not , and should never be a crime.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)Same question I asked earlier in response to the "very little changes" defense. And is there a test case where a different outcome would have occurred with the new law. Otherwise, how is this not just upsetting the applecart without a sound reason -- or a solution looking for a problem. So far nobody has shown me why this new law is necessary.
Oneka
(653 posts)that were not discussed upthread, one being the limited immunity from prosecution civilly for an act of self defense.
EX, the family of a home invader, who gets shot and killed during the commission of his crime, will now not be able to sue the defender
and put him/her into financial ruin over something that was started by the dead criminal.
There are other changes, the words "substantial bodily harm" have been included in this legislation along with Great bodily harm, as a
threshold of violence to resist using deadly force.
There are other changes. feel free to read the two statutes and compare.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)I saw where protection was expanded to include things like a tent, hotel room and fenced in yard. Fine, that is a one sentence change. I don't understand blending civil law into a criminal law and thus don't see the need. Just think if this would have been in place for O.J. Simpson. He was found not guilty on the criminal charge and this would have prevented him from being tried in civil court. Are you sure this is what you want? I fear other unintended consequences with a full replacement law such as this. Plus, you keep ducking the call to provide a case where a different outcome would have resulted had this proposed law been on the books. If it is not broke, don't fix it looks to apply here (meaning the complete replacement). Still no sale.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Yeah! Open season on mother-in-laws!
if your M-I-L is breaking in without her key, because she just found out that you cheated on her little darling daughter
with your babysitter who is now pregnant, then what?
Are you supposed to just let her in with god knows what weapons and, revenge on her mind?
See, we can both hitch our wagons, to unlikely scenarios, and ride off into relevantVille.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)And many of them involve misuse/abuse of this slacker law.
Anyone could invite anyone into their home, start an argument .... and then "have" to shoot them in self-defense.
And now? With more permissive laws, that's more possible than ever.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Where's the beef, Brettongarcia?
Oneka
(653 posts)In other states with similar laws right?
Murderers getting away with thier crimes
in record numbers ?
Can it happen? , sure, will it happen?
Doubtful, if other states are any indication.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)I can say with more than 90% certainty and an enormous number of those people would wish you AND THE PRESIDENT dead. You could certainly walk around with an Obama 2012 button until someone threatens you (won't take long) and then fire away.
greiner3
(5,214 posts)Veers toward me I can then pull out my semi auto and take them out?
Kewl!!!!!!!!!!!
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)If society disagrees with that being a reasonable use of a firearm, you would see prison.
saras
(6,670 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)5.4to subdivision 2 may use all force and means, including deadly force, that the individual
5.5in good faith believes is required to succeed in defense. The individual may meet force
5.6with superior force when the individual's objective is defensive; the individual is not
5.7required to retreat; and the individual may continue defensive actions against an assailant
5.8until the danger has ended.
If you really want to do that and take your chances on how a jury would see it, that's your business. Meanwhile I'll keep my SUV out of Minnesota.
barbtries
(28,799 posts)and you fire away? wow.
stop these republicans...
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)See also similar sections in the California Penal Code, starting with Section 197. I believe you will find the differences between the Minnesota bill and long-established California law to be insignificant if you will take the time to read and understand both.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199
barbtries
(28,799 posts)i think you will agree if you go back and re-read the OP.
i'm not going to go read these laws. make of that what you will. i do not support them.
in CA, los angeles alone, people are being murdered with guns every fucking day. every day.
Under the proposal, "If you are anywhere you can legally be, you can defend yourself against a criminal," said Republican Senator Gretchen Hoffman, the Senate sponsor. "If I am on the street ... and I feel imminent danger of physical harm, I should be able to act with equal or greater force."
Fortran
(83 posts)They are embracing the simple concept of self defense as dozens of other states have.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)really, really stupid and irresponsible.
"He didn't look right to me... he had that LOOK in his eyes, so pulled the trigger! Yeeee-haw!"
spedtr90
(719 posts)She tweeted this from the legislative chamber during a hearing while the senator mentioned was describing the shameful way the mentally ill and disabled people were treated in the past. Hoffman was subject to an ethics complaint and later apologized for the tweet (reluctantly of course).
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)...or opposing gay marriage, or lowering taxes for the wealthy. But let's cheer it on because it means more freedom for gun owners.
Oneka
(653 posts)that you are against "more freedom" just because the legislation was proposed and supported primarily by republicans?
Would you be against more freedom, in areas like free speech, or religion if it was supported by republicans also? or just in the case of a
constitutionally protected right like gun ownership?
Democrats and Progressives in Minnesota and throughout this entire country, should be flocking to support "more freedom" in all areas, not deriding it, where big scary guns, are involved.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)This was a major theme in old, 50's westerns. And say? The book of Revelation
Every man does what is right in his own eyes. With guns blazing.
Didn't make small town lives more peaceful; not at all.
Oneka
(653 posts)into your own hands is the absolute essence of self defense, we trust folks to take the law into their own hands every day by using stoplights ,and other traffic control tools, yet people die every day, due to other folks driving thier 3000# plus machines in an unsafe manner, intentionally or not.If crimes are committed they are investigated by the authorities and people are charged and convicted, that doesn't change with this new legislation. These are prices we pay to have a free society where individuals have all the rights, and freedoms we all deserve, as humans. including the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)You sure you want to give that up? Being the shooter might sound good; but how about being an innocent victim?
Oneka
(653 posts)i will still enjoy my right to my own life. please look at other states that have passed similar laws, the instances of "wild west style shootouts, and rivers of blood flowing through the streets, never really materialized.
I am VERY willing to codify a self defense idiology into state law, that enables normal every day citizens to defend themselves without
haveing to admit to a crime, to avail themselves of a defense. That is what this law does. The biggest change in this law to current is
the burden of proof now being on the state to prove that i acted in a manner other than self defense , if they want to prosecute me for using deadly force, against someone who attacks me.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Especially a fight with a person you already know, and invited into your home. The proposed new laws in Minnesota wouldn't make any difference in that situation. Under current law the state has to prove the same things - Motive, means, opportunity, etc. - in order to prosecute a person for homicide as it would under the proposed new law.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)I am forced to confine my driving speed near elementary schools to 20 mph. An infringement on my personal freedom? Absolutely. Fortunately the National Reckless Driving Association hasn't found a bunch of suckers to send them money so they can lobby against any and all speed limits.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)for reasons unknown the gun culture is unable to connect legislation like this with all the rest of the far-right initiatives. Either that, or they're happy to put up with kooks like Santorum as long as gun rights are expanded.
Oneka
(653 posts)A thread was started about this legislation in the Gun group.
It has been up since Friday with exactly 7 responses.
Cheered loudly indeed....
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)In Print: Sunday, October 17, 2010
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.ece
snip
The self-defense law — known as "stand your ground" — has been invoked in at least 93 cases with 65 deaths, a St. Petersburg Times review found.
In the majority of the cases, the person's use of force was excused by prosecutors and the courts.
Proponents say that means the law is working, allowing people to protect themselves without having to ponder legalities in the heat of an attack. You don't have to wait to see how much of a victim you're going to be. You don't have to wait for the first bone to break.
But the law has also been used to excuse violence in deadly neighbor arguments, bar brawls, road rage — even a gang shoot-out — that just as easily might have ended with someone walking away.
(Billy Kuch is pictured in the hospital after he was shot in 2009. He drunkenly stumbled to the door of the wrong house at 5 a.m.)
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)There was a recent case in Austin: some drunk kid ran out of ga, and was walking up a driveway to ask for gas or a phone. The person in the house shot him three times, dead.
Heck Bubba! Sound's "reason"able to me, eh?
That's what happens when every Bubba thinks he's smart enough to define "reasonable."
And to be "his own judge, jury, and executioner."
Oneka
(653 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Bubba learns what "reasonable" means ... too late.
Oneka
(653 posts)he chose a driveway of a stone cold killer.
Bubba, may well have shot this kid with or without a castle doctrine law.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)These ridiculous laws are guaranteed to result is senseless deaths
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)a link to the bill:
http://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1467.2.html&session=ls87
Response to Little Tich (Original post)
Post removed
ileus
(15,396 posts)All States need this law.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)The unarmed back kid in the hoodie, that was just gunned down by a vigilante in Florida; thanks to its "Castle" doctrine.
-..__...
(7,776 posts)learn the difference.
Regardless... I'm still a firm supporter of both principles/legal issues.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Castle Doctrine refers to your house or property, SYG is about extending that to where you happen to be. So with SYG you can "defend" (shoot someone approaching) "your" chunk of public sidewalk, if you feel threatened. Your car, boat, tent becomes your house and your "property" extends to the length of your paranoia.
Minnesota does not need laws to make it easier to kill and I personally don't care what other states think about it. Dayton shoould veto this law and hopefully keep it from coming up again before the Teabaggers get flushed from the House and Senate.