Minnesota and usage of deadly force

[.cheese.]

I read another post recently that mentioned that in Minnesota, you basically aren't allowed to use lethal force for anything short of a last resort, where you have to choose between being murdered, or pulling the trigger.

Supposedly, even in your own home, if you are confronted by an armed man, you have to flee?

I'm just trying to get familiarized with the laws there as there's a pretty decent chance I'm moving there in a few months (as of the moment, a 60% chance I'll be living in Minnesota, and a 40% chance I'll be living in Colorado - this could change as I hear from more law schools and reformulate my plan). I'll actually be out there in 2 weeks visiting too. Do gun stores have a book on Minnesota gun laws I can read that is straight-forward?

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

No one should have to retreat from their own residence. If I was confronted by an armed man, I would assume that he will probably try to kill me at any point. If he's a gun carrying and trespassing criminal, he doesn't really have many rights in your house, and how can you expect him to be nice and not use that gun he brought?

 

[Hush]

Oh no? Welcome to Massachusetts.

 

[Old Fuff]

Hush is right. Some states require that you flee (if you can) rather then use deadly force against an invader. This had its basis in English Common Law, where everyone was a Subject of the Crown, and therefore only the Crown could use deadly force. So far the "Subjects" that live in Massachusetts haven't demended that the law be changed.

 

[qwert65]

That really stinks

 

[pbearperry]

Welcome to Massachusetts

As much as I love to bash my state Massachussets,Mr. Hush is incorrect.If someone breaks into our homes,we do not have to flee.We also can use Lethal Force if we have reason to believe serious bodily injury or iminant death may occur.Keeping this in mind, if you are attacked or put in harms way in Mass. and you have the ability to create distance and escape, outside the home,that is viewed as your first choice.I am sure if the powers to be in Mass. clearly see that you had the ability to escape the danger zone in public and you didn't and decided to resort to shooting someone,you would probably be prosecuted.

 

[Kleanbore]

This [(the requirement that you flee if you can rather then use deadly force)] had its basis in English Common Law, where everyone was a Subject of the Crown, and therefore only the Crown could use deadly force.

Subjects of the Crown were indeed permitted to use deadly force in self defense under the English Common Law.

The "duty to retreat" stemmed from the need to distinguish between legitimate self defense (defence) and murder or a fight resulting in death. The common law required retreating "to the wall" (beyond which one could retreat no further), and this came about before the general usage of firearms.

I do not believe that the requirement to retreat applied within one's dwelling.

 

[Rodentman]

"Retreating" or "fleeing" has a variable meaning I would posit. As an amputee I cannot run; I can do an artist's conception of walking, but that's about it.

 

[Hungry Seagull]

The best I can hope for is to raise the alarm to the LEO's and stay alive. If that means deadly force, so be it. But fleeing? Are you kidding? Suppose you fled from a dwelling from someone with a long gun or a carbine... or even a scoped shotgun.

I make it to about 150 yards and running short of breath and almost to safety when I die tired from the intruder in my home.

No. No fleeing here.

The only time we must abandon the ship is fire or gas either from house leak or railroad tanker wreck.

Some states have laws and that is all well and good. We remember that we are a Free People able to move/vote with our feet and go to other states that are more embracing of our 2A (Im slowly learning aint I?) rights.

 

[JWHardin]

Thats right, theres no clear law in Minnesota on legal application of deadly force by civilians and there is no such animal here as a Castle Doctrine which provides exemption if your home is forcibly entered.
Lets say you are in the Kitchen when a gang of slimebags boots in your front door, you grab your shotgun and down the leader as hes crossing the living room. In that circumstance in most counties you are going to court. Its true we do have good folks in Law Enforcement and the DAs offices in some counties, mostly the extreme northern part of the State but even there its really highly dependant on who the sherriff and DA are.
Ideally in the above situation, even in your own home, you are expected to retreat. Once you have no other place to retreat to and are in fear of mortal harm being done you can use only enough force to end the situation. If the DA can argue you used excessive force that resulted in a death you will probably be convicted of manslaughter.
I argued with the CCW promoters here for years about this, that they were putting the cart before the horse but no one seemed to care.
Hell we had serious problems up north with certain Game Wardens who were busting Handgun hunters for illegal CCW in the field for having their piece in a shoulder rig under their jacket in the middle of the deep forest. Good number of the pro CCW people in the rural areas wanted the permit to prevent these outrages

 

[NoneMoreBlack]

I just took my CCW course yesterday and this topic came up. The summary materials we had contained MN Supreme Court vs Pendleton, which states:

"A defendant asserting "defense of dwelling" is not required to show that he or she feared death or great bodily harm to justify the use of deadly force in preventing the commission of a felony in the defendant's place of abode"

i.e. Legally, you may be justified in firing on somebody who is stealing your TV, but it could be iffy, and morally falls pretty far on the side of wrong. If he drops the TV and advances on you, that's a different story. So, while we have no explicit "castle doctrine," it would seem to me that being in your home does imply "no reasonable means of retreat."

 

[Hungry Seagull]

I tried my best to stay out of this but the TV thing got me going again.

Suppose a gang did flood the living room, you shoot the leader. One of two things is going to happen. Return fire from the surviving gang takes you out or they will stop in tracks. Humans in a group as a single attacking force are sometimes unable to coordinate once something like shooting the leader happens.

If Minnesota does not have a law, then the People of that State needs to get one onto the Table to clarify this issue. The Government is run by the People no?

 

[Deanimator]

USUALLY, "duty to retreat" ACTUALLY means "duty to retreat, IF you can do so in PERFECT SAFETY".

I've never been a fast runner, and in the Army they taught us that NOBODY can outrun a bullet.

Of course in Ohio, I've got NO duty to flee my home to avoid an armed assault. I couldn't do it without serious injury anyway. Jumping out of an apartment window doesn't count as "perfect safety" even in Sarah Brady's Cloud-Cuckoo-Land world.

 

[NoneMoreBlack]

Hungry Seagull:

It looks like the court decided what the spirit of the law means in the decision I quoted, and the legislature so far feels that to be adequate. The US being a common law country, there is nothing unusual about this.

While I agree that the fewer gray areas in the application of deadly force the better, in practice you can't legislate every possible scenario in advance (which is why I am happy not to live under a civil law system).

The point is, it appears to me that you would be legally justified in Minnesota if you fired at an intruder in your own home without attempting to flee, so I don't think we are in disagreement. The obligation is "no reasonable means of retreat," wherein "reasonable" does not include fleeing from your own home, or placing yourself in greater danger than not fleeing.

 

[BamaHoosier]

Is there a thread here or website somewhere,showing which states,their counties,and towns forbid a homeowner from shooting back,or is that too much info to post?Just curious

 

[JWHardin]

lets not get into arguing points of legal semantics on this. While your definition of "no means of reasonable retreat" may seem entirely reasonable to most of us here, myself included that will not be how the majority of Prosecutors will see it in much of the State. No reasonable means of retreat means just that. If you have a clear avenue of retreat thus avoiding a violent encounter you are under Pendelton required to do exactly that. Using the Gang encounter example if they crash thru your front door while you are in your kitchen and there is a back door in that kitchen allowing your escape under Pendelton you must flee out that door. Now lets change the situation where you retreat to your bedroom and they follow. Cornered with no reasonable means of retreat you can down the slimebags and even the most aggressive of DAs will not be able to touch you. This is a long ways from Castle Doctrine folks.
Do Not Overlook that the language leaves quite a great deal left to situational interpetation by the prosecutor. Some DAs will decline to advance a case but you can bet your last dollar that their are no shortage of them that will look at you as just another notch in their belts or bra straps.
FWIW

 

[akodo]

MN tried to push through a 'Castle Doctrine' but it got bogged down in committie.

As it stands now, there is NO requirement to retreat.

As stated, there has been a case where 'Defense of Dwelling' was deemed sufficeint, but intrinsic to that argument was reasonable fear. (i.e. maybe he climbed through the window to use the toilet...but probably not) just not IMMEDIATE reasonable fear.

However, if you are in IMMEDIATE reasonable fear of death/harm, MN law says you can use deadly force. It does not tack a 'retreat' clause on that.

 

[eldiabloe1]

Come on out to CO. Just stay out of Boulder or Denver and it's all good.

 

[akodo]

I suspect you are referring to the University of Minnesota law school. I have nothing bad to say about them. However, I will mention Hamline University has a law program. Here's the important part. Joe Olson, who had a real big part of crafting the MN 'personal protection act' i.e. our current 'shall issue' CCW law, is a professor there.

I believe he is technically under 'business law' and 'tax law' and has done most of his work there. However, as you can see from this short summary of his recent articles...

Amicus Brief on Behalf of Academics for the Second Amendment in Support of Respondent. D.C. v. Heller
What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amendment?
Pistols, Crime, and Public Safety in Early America
All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America
In re 101 California Street: A Legal and Economic Analysis of Strict Liability for the Manufacture and Sale of ‘Assault Weapons’

He is clearly pro 2nd amendment. If you have any interest in getting into that angle of the law...or at least want to attend an institution where you are not going to be condemned roundly by EVERY staff member for being a gun owner, I'd consider Hamline

http://law.hamline.edu/node/784

 

[JWHardin]

You all can run it how you want, I am speaking from 50 years of experience in this state and how it does business in its courts. If you hear a noise downstairs, grab a gun and shoot the perp you better damn well be certain hes armed. Can recall several cases over the years where crap like this occurred, all were metro cases with a teenaged black perp and each of them ended in a manslaughter conviction for the homeowner. Your odds ARE arguably better in the rural counties but good chance even if you are aquitted you will still be bled white by the costs then lets not forget the virtual certainty of a civil lawsuit in this state.
This type of discussion is a great deal like those TEOTWAWKI debates or "whats the best gun to kill Zombies?" as there is theory and practice when it comes to what is prosecutable.
Tread carefully in application of deadly force