Drizzt
Member
Self-defense proposal is too close to trigger
A proposed change to the law would make it too easy to shoot people without consequences.
By JAMES C. BACKSTROM
Last update: March 7, 2008 - 6:37 PM
The Legislature is considering a significant expansion of our law regarding the authorized use of deadly force. Not only is this expansion unnecessary, it would be harmful to efforts to prosecute dangerous criminals who commit violent crimes.
Under current law, Minnesota's citizens rightfully can protect themselves when confronted with danger and can justifiably take another's life to avert death or great bodily harm. However, our law properly requires that the response be reasonable and necessary given the gravity of the peril. Also, before exercising our right of self-defense, we must attempt to avoid the danger if reasonably possible (unless we are in our own home where a felony is being committed).
The proposed law would allow the use of deadly force to resist or prevent any reasonably perceived threat of substantial or great bodily harm or death in any location and when responding to a reasonably perceived felony or attempted felony in a person's dwelling or occupied vehicle. It eliminates the duty to retreat, authorizes meeting force with superior force, creates a presumption that the response is "reasonably perceived" whenever someone enters a dwelling or occupied vehicle by force or stealth, and expands the definition of "dwelling" to include decks, porches, fenced-in areas and tents.
Supporters see these changes as merely affording law-abiding citizens the right to stand their ground and protect themselves when confronted by dangerous criminals. In truth, this proposal greatly alters the standards associated with the legal authority to use deadly force and will have some significant unintended consequences.
This proposal creates a subjective standard of reasonableness rather than the objective standard in current law. The issue becomes what was in the mind of the person using deadly force, rather than how a reasonable person would react under the same circumstances.
Such a law would in essence allow people to shoot first and ask questions later whenever they believe they are exposed to harm, regardless of how a reasonable person would respond under the circumstances.
We'd be returning to the days of the Wild West, when two gunmen could face off in the street and the winner could walk away without fear of consequences, under a claim of self-defense. Such lawless frontier days should remain in our past. Do we really want cases of road rage to result in a shooting death, when the surviving party could have stepped on the gas and driven away?
This expansion of the right to use deadly force would apply equally to criminals as to law-abiding citizens. It would create viable self-defense claims in situations like bar fights. It could allow rival gangs to shoot at one another with impunity. With no duty to retreat, anyone could claim they were responding to a threat of serious harm and were therefore justified in killing a person.
Current Minnesota law concerning the right of self-defense and the justified use of deadly force adequately protects our law-abiding citizens. This proposal would unnecessarily expand the law and make it much more difficult to prosecute and convict people who commit crimes.
The taking of a life should be a last resort. It should not be encouraged as a first response unless the danger is reasonably apparent to us all. We should not return to the days when shootouts were commonplace and few or no questions were asked of the last man standing.
James C. Backstrom is the Dakota County attorney and president of the Minnesota County Attorneys Association.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/16396336.html
A proposed change to the law would make it too easy to shoot people without consequences.
By JAMES C. BACKSTROM
Last update: March 7, 2008 - 6:37 PM
The Legislature is considering a significant expansion of our law regarding the authorized use of deadly force. Not only is this expansion unnecessary, it would be harmful to efforts to prosecute dangerous criminals who commit violent crimes.
Under current law, Minnesota's citizens rightfully can protect themselves when confronted with danger and can justifiably take another's life to avert death or great bodily harm. However, our law properly requires that the response be reasonable and necessary given the gravity of the peril. Also, before exercising our right of self-defense, we must attempt to avoid the danger if reasonably possible (unless we are in our own home where a felony is being committed).
The proposed law would allow the use of deadly force to resist or prevent any reasonably perceived threat of substantial or great bodily harm or death in any location and when responding to a reasonably perceived felony or attempted felony in a person's dwelling or occupied vehicle. It eliminates the duty to retreat, authorizes meeting force with superior force, creates a presumption that the response is "reasonably perceived" whenever someone enters a dwelling or occupied vehicle by force or stealth, and expands the definition of "dwelling" to include decks, porches, fenced-in areas and tents.
Supporters see these changes as merely affording law-abiding citizens the right to stand their ground and protect themselves when confronted by dangerous criminals. In truth, this proposal greatly alters the standards associated with the legal authority to use deadly force and will have some significant unintended consequences.
This proposal creates a subjective standard of reasonableness rather than the objective standard in current law. The issue becomes what was in the mind of the person using deadly force, rather than how a reasonable person would react under the same circumstances.
Such a law would in essence allow people to shoot first and ask questions later whenever they believe they are exposed to harm, regardless of how a reasonable person would respond under the circumstances.
We'd be returning to the days of the Wild West, when two gunmen could face off in the street and the winner could walk away without fear of consequences, under a claim of self-defense. Such lawless frontier days should remain in our past. Do we really want cases of road rage to result in a shooting death, when the surviving party could have stepped on the gas and driven away?
This expansion of the right to use deadly force would apply equally to criminals as to law-abiding citizens. It would create viable self-defense claims in situations like bar fights. It could allow rival gangs to shoot at one another with impunity. With no duty to retreat, anyone could claim they were responding to a threat of serious harm and were therefore justified in killing a person.
Current Minnesota law concerning the right of self-defense and the justified use of deadly force adequately protects our law-abiding citizens. This proposal would unnecessarily expand the law and make it much more difficult to prosecute and convict people who commit crimes.
The taking of a life should be a last resort. It should not be encouraged as a first response unless the danger is reasonably apparent to us all. We should not return to the days when shootouts were commonplace and few or no questions were asked of the last man standing.
James C. Backstrom is the Dakota County attorney and president of the Minnesota County Attorneys Association.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/16396336.html
who the hell is voting for them
BTW - those who carried did not do so openly - nobody would have known except a committee member who is against the bill made a joke that our main speaker was carrying - as he knew this would 'set off' the peace activists.
