Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns I don't care about 50 yd accuracy!

Okay, what section of MN law are you harping on that defines distance?

It's not 609.06 - https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.06

And, it's not 609.065 - https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.065

Where is it?

If your life is truly on the line enough to justify shooting .....

WHO GIVES A [bleep] ?

Sort the rest out later , Alive..






Old proverb "he who lets mans law sanction his saving of his own ass is a fool "

Uhhhh, that's not really unique to the wonderful state of Minnesoduh.

It's called murder.

Google it.




Dave

NEWS FLASH! That is the way it is everywhere!

One of the all time dumbest phucqking threads ever.

Hey, has anyone yet found that section of MN law that defines a distance for self-defense?

"Please state to the jury what happened next."

"I shot the man shooting at me six times. Reluctantly."

"ACQUITTED!"





Dave

150 feet is not long, unless you are digging a ditch with a shovel.
Think about it.

Yep.

Most of this is the same in every state. You cannot be the aggressor (i.e., you can't start the fight and then shoot the guy because you're losing); whether it's called a "reluctant participant" or "clean hands", or whatever.

There has to be an immediate threat of death or serious/grievous bodily injury to you. That means that a verbal threat without means or without clear intent isn't enough. But, an armed assailant with a clear or reasonably implied intent to cause death or serious harm is a threat. That threat has to be immediate, not potentially in the distant future, and it has to be immediate in proximity (this depends upon the weapon; a knife at 50m isn't immediate - likely - whereas a handgun at that distance certainly could be and a rifle would be well beyond 50m).

In some states, and MN is almost assuredly one of them, there are case law precedents or perhaps statutory provisions requiring a "duty to retreat"; i.e., if you can reasonably/safely get yourself, then you have to do so or attempt to do so before deadly force is permitted. This muddies up the water badly, because it is entirely situational and open to interpretation as to what might have been a retreat option, when, and whether or not it was potentially reasonable or safe. Several states have gone to "stand your ground" laws where you no longer have any duty to retreat in order to remove this confusion from the prosecution/defense of self-defense cases.

Some states, probably MN, also require that no lesser degree of force be appropriate to the situation. The response has to be proportional to the actual threat. A healthy, relatively fit and strong man cannot simply shoot a much smaller, unarmed woman for smacking him in the face and claim self-defense; that would be a disproportionate response. However, a small, elderly, mobility impaired man might very easily be able to claim self-defense for shooting a large, aggressive female who physically assaults him. This also brings in lesser available options for defense; a healthy, strong male might easily be able to incapacitate that smaller, aggressive woman or extricate himself from the situation, the older man without strength or mobility would not be seen as having those available options. Again, this muddies the water badly because it leaves a ton to interpretation.

In certain states, this may apply to third-parties as well; most extend the same standards to family members, others extend it to any individual stating that all people have a right to life and defense of life of another is a legitimate use of deadly force if parameters are met for the victim to have used deadly force. I.e., in those states, a person can use deadly force to eliminate a threat of death or serious bodily injury to another, if the victim would have been justified in using deadly force to defend themselves.

Regardless of the state, if there is a legitimate threat of death or serious bodily injury to you or another and that threat is immediate enough in time and proximity that it likely could kill you, if you don't react and eliminate that threat, you're likely going to be dead. That will result in you being carried by six men. If you do react and eliminate the threat, you might be tried by twelve men. If that's the choice, I'll take my chances with the latter over the former any day.

Presumably, the answer is different in Minnesota...

Well written. I wonder how the Zimmerman case would have ended in MN. Zimmerman (lawyers) went with self defense and did not seek stand your ground as a defense.

IIRC, "stand your ground" wasn't at issue in that case. It was a straight up self-defense case.

As to how it would have turned out in MN - no telling; with or without the media circus would have made it a different case anywhere, I suspect.

There are no additional provisions in Minnesota. The statute in entirety:

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

I agree. I could find ONLY 609.06 and 609.065 as far as statutory requirements. What has been established by case law, however, is an entirely different matter and might have bearing on how such cases are prosecuted in MN. Sorry, but I'm not going to delve that deeply into researching self-defense cases in MN to determine whether there is a common law precedent for a duty to retreat.

I should have stated it as precedent and not provision, however. That verbiage was a mistake on my part. Edited to reflect your points, and thanks again.

You're doing just fine, thanks. A few years ago the governor vetoed a "castle doctrine" law, and since that time it has been assumed by some that Minnesotans have a duty to retreat. That isn't correct - the existing law's provision for taking a life "preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode" makes tossing in a few buzz words redundant.

I had a rasty ol firearms instructor in training too. He use to let us shoot, then his wife. Wife was about 4ft7inches and had a chief's special. She liked to do head shots at 50 yards to put the puppies in their place.
I grew up shooting like you described, cept i've never seen a woodchuck. My dad said a running rabbit is a perfect target to develop handgun skills. I think to this day he was right.

Fine DA work Flave. Sgt. Deibler would slap you on the back so hard you'd swaller that lip full of Copenhagen you weren't supposed to be dirtying up his gawddam range up with anyhow.

Sarge!

Two things are memorialized in my brain.

1.) A Drill Instructor telling me to "put it in your pocket" after I spit.
2.) A career LE guy asking "What the fugk are you doing?" after I thumbed a hammer.

Merry MLK day.


Travis

Nice shooting..

Wow! That is some good shooting there!