"Stand Your Ground"

So, last year, we tried to amend Minnesota's self-defense laws in a positive way.

Currently, MN self-defense law consists of 609.06, which reads, in part ('cause its long):

609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
Subdivision 1.When authorized...reasonable* force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably* believes them to exist: (*there's that "reasonable person" standard popping up)

(1) (deals with police)

(2) (deals with arrest not by police)

(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or

(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property; or

etc etc etc

So there it is. You're allowed to use reasonable force when resisting an offense against you, or someone else. "Reasonable" force means, if you're confronted by someone waving a feather - you're not allowed to shoot them. However, if you're confronted with a fear of death or great bodily harm - you've thereby met the standard. Now, many have pointed out: "But that doesn't look so bad, it would appear you can defend yourself anywhere, anytime".

BUT we must then turn to "case" law. I must state that I'm not a lawyer (and don't rely on my statements alone - better yet, look them up for yourself!).

State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 368, 373, 152 N.W.2d 529, 532 (1967) wrote:
It is well settled that there is a duty to retreat and avoid danger if reasonably possible.

State v. Austin, 1983, 332 N.W.2d 21. Homicide 1485 wrote:
...[B]efore you can avail yourself of self-defense, you must retreat and avoid the danger if you can reasonably do so....[I]f you can reasonably avoid it, you must retreat and avoid the danger, rather than charge into the fight and flail away....

These were two cases which brought up whats referred to as the "duty to retreat". Basically, when confronted by a "reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm" you must first try to get away from the situation.

Now, most of us don't go looking for trouble. I was told a long time ago by my parents: "Don't do STUPID things, with STUPID people, in STUPID places." So, stay away from trouble -- however, if trouble finds you...doesn't matter if its in your garage, the parking lot at the mall, the pharmacy, everywhere EXCEPT your home (more on this in a few), you have a duty to retreat - you must try and get away.

Now, that sounds easy right? Just turn around and run. But...

1) Putting your back to your attacker is #badideajeans
2) What if you can't? ie. small confined area, icy, disabled, etc...

Sounds silly! You can't tell your attacker to "BACK THE F OFF"...YOU have to try and get away first. Only if you've attempted retreat, or retreat is impossible, can force be authorized by the statute.

Back to last year's legislation -- S.F. 1357: Defense of Dwelling and Person Act of 2011, would have retified this discrepancy, and removed the duty to retreat.

There was plenty of hand-wringing from Joan/Heather and Co (I won't link, but google "Protect" MN)...that this would lead to "blood in the streets"...even though it would NOT have removed the "Reasonable" person standard. Only if faced with a "reasonable" threat of death or great bodily harm, would deadly force have been authorized. Thats something our opponents conveniently leave out of the argument.

When it comes up again this year - I'm hoping that people actually READ the bill -- rather than succumb to catchy names! We need to make law abiding citizens not have to scramble around, looking for an exit, potentially falling down, getting hit in the back, etc... when faced with death or great bodily harm.

Later,
Pat