MN Supreme Court duty to retreat ruling {xpost from Minnesota}

[sarisataka]

MN Supreme Court duty to retreat ruling

When the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld two second-degree assault with a deadly weapon convictions against a man with a machete who was threatened by a man with a knife at a Minneapolis light rail station, the state's highest court also set a new precedent involving Minnesota's self-defense laws.

In a 4-2 split decision, the court wrote that longstanding Minnesota law says that there is a duty to retreat when reasonably possible before using deadly force, even when facing bodily harm.

But according to Rob Doar, the vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, the ruling means anyone who uses a deadly weapon in self-defense must look for a reasonable way to retreat before even showing a weapon, or they can be charged with a crime.

"Minnesota is one of the states that does have a duty to retreat. But now with this decision, we are literally the only state in the country that requires you to retreat before you even present a force option," said Doar.

https://www.fox9.com/news/mn-supreme-court-duty-retreat-ruling

While it does follow precedent of MN law, the expansion is concerning. It could be that a woman facing an assailant would have to try to flee before even grabbing her pepper spray.

[bucolic_frolic]

1. That's crazy.

Be nice before you can use force. You could be dead already.

[Ocelot II]

2. Pepper spray isn't deadly force, so the decision wouldn't apply.

[sarisataka]

3. I haven't seen the text of the decision

so I do not know if it is limited to nonlethal force as well as deadly force. If so I wouldn't have much objection as it reflects current law however if retreat must come before any force, or display, then it is putting the life of the criminal ahead of that of the victim. I have issues with that.

[Ocelot II]

4. Here ya go:

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/supct/2024/OPA220432-073124.pdf

"Given that the facts of this case involve brandishing a machete in self defense, our narrow extension of the judicially created duty to retreat when reasonably possible is limited to persons who commit felony second-degree assault-fear with a particular type of dangerous weapon—namely, a device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm."

[sarisataka]

5. TY

Seems to be a limited expansion which is not unreasonable. I'll have to read it all later

[yagotme]

6. My question would be, how would the person being assaulted,

determine the legal standing between 2d degree, and 1st degree? A lay person, confronted with a deadly weapon, isn't going to be able to call up their lawyer before something bad happens, while they are in the process of looking for an escape route, etc. Seems to put a lot of the burden of proof against the victim, IMO.