Minnesota's 'Shoot First Law'

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Gary, Mar 1, 2012.

  1. Gary

    Gary Vs The Irresistible Farce Supporter

    So is a perceived threat enough justification to kill?

    http://open.salon.com/blog/steve_klingaman/2012/02/28/veto_the_minnesota_shoot_first_law

     
  2. Seventh

    Seventh Super Sexy Sushi Time

    This sounds moderately stupid (gut reaction).
     
  3. Gripfighter

    Gripfighter Sub Seeker

    more people should learn to shoot first with this

    [​IMG]

    than this

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Kwajman

    Kwajman Penguin in paradise....

    Actually I'm in favor of laws like that. However remember that I'm sure the police would investigate both parties involved and the truth would come out.
     
  5. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    Well that's retarded
     
  6. Convergencezone

    Convergencezone Valued Member

    The “feeling threatened” part is consistent with self-defense laws in other parts of the US that allow concealed carry laws. In fact, all self defense laws that I know of use the "perception" of threat as a litmus test. I don't think this means that there is no accountability. You could still
    be prosecuted if it was deemed not reasonable that you should have felt threatened.

    I think many people may be missing the point of this news story. What makes this newsworthy is not that someone can use deadly force if they merely have a "feeling: that cannot be backed up.

    This is about the elimination of one's "duty to retreat" prior to using deadly force and the extension of the castle doctrine outside one's home.

    I wanted to clarify a bit. The “castle doctrine” referred to means that if you are in your home you are totally justified in shooting and killing an intruder. You don’t have to try to get away first by, let’s say, jumping out the window and running down the block to call the police. In most parts of the US, if you are out and about carrying a weapon (legally) you do have a “duty to retreat” if faced with a self defense situation before you use deadly force –meaning you have to try to leave, or try to get away somehow. The Minnesota law is significant because it eliminates this requirement. If you have a right to be there normally, then you don’t need to try to leave before resorting to force
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2012
  7. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Stupid? Someone said this is stupid? Get real. This is essentially putting the common law into the statutory law. At common law you've always been able to meet force with equal force. The only change here is that you can explicitly use a deadly weapon to prevent "substantial bodily harm." At common law that would perhaps be a grey area, as "substantial bodily harm" doesn't necessarily mean you're going to die, but neither does using a gun necessarily mean you're going to kill the guy. This statute just helps to clear up that grey area.
     
  8. OwlMAtt

    OwlMAtt Armed and Scrupulous

    Yeah, I really don't see any problem with this. Wisconsin just passed a law allowing people to shoot first at any trespasser on their property, and I think that goes a little too far, but these seem pretty common sense.
     
  9. Convergencezone

    Convergencezone Valued Member

    Yes, and what people need to realize is that you still have to perceive a threat. It doesn’t mean that you can shoot at the neighbors for running across your lawn.
     
  10. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    That's right. The neighbor running across your lawn might be a trespasser, but if a reasonable person in your situation would not perceive a threat, you can't shoot.

    I'm surprised that Wisconsin needed that statute. Is this new law talking about outside the actual house? The common law rule is clear: anybody inside your house is presumed to be a bad guy perpetrating an inherently dangerous felony, so you can kill him.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
  11. boards

    boards Its all in the reflexes!

    From what I can see, yes it refers to being outside of a house. It includes being within any form of motor vehicle including cars, trains, boats, trams etc. The way it is story is written it seems like it refers to anywhere, whether the story is acccurate is another debate.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 4, 2012
  12. John R. Gambit

    John R. Gambit The 'Rona Wrangler

    This is the bio of the writer from that questionable looking "news" source.

    Call me a skeptic, but I'm confident Texans aren't going to be out casually shooting each other without consequence because of this law.
     
  13. Oddsbodskins

    Oddsbodskins Troll hunter 2nd Class

    Awww man, I had my safari trip all planned and everything...
     
  14. oldshadow

    oldshadow Valued Member

    Good law to support self-defense and a step in the correct direction.
    My state is moving more in this direction to protect the justified use of deadly force and I support it as do the majority of the people in this state.
     

Share This Page