It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Some Minnesota police chiefs and prosecutors are organizing opposition to a bill that would expand the ability of Minnesotans to use deadly force in self-defense.
Originally posted by banandar123
reply to post by ucantcme
Wait let me make sure I understand this correctly...Residents of Minnesota can use firearms as a means of self-defense, but only inside of their own homes? If that's the case, then I support this bill. I'm exhausted, though, so maybe I didn't read the article as well as I should have.
Originally posted by dwmjr1985
reply to post by ucantcme
Has anyone been criminalized for protecting themselves in any cases because the current law doesn't state enough. I have heard that in some states, they have a self defense law, but it doesn't go far enough and if you injure someone who is breaking into your house, the criminal can sue you. Now i'm not sure i believe this, I heard of it by word of mouth so that can be a little iffy. If that was the case in your state though, i would say you do need a better law for protecting yourself. Police can take a long time to respond in some cities, especially now sense city's are cutting the forces down even more to shave off money from their budget. Your now more so on your own than previously.
In the state of Minnesota you have the right to defend yourself. If you have been charged with assault, or even murder, but it was in self defense, you can be found not guilty if you meet certain factors. Generally, in Minnesota you can use force to defend yourself, your home, or others, but the degree of force which may be used depends upon the circumstances. In order to claim self defense, you cannot have been the aggressor, you must have a reasonable belief that there is actual and immediate danger of death or great bodily harm, or a felony crime, and the actions you take to defend yourself must appear necessary.
Originally posted by bumpufirst
reply to post by ucantcme
lol,and it is the police that jumps to stop it?hmmm,i wonder why,kind of puts a balance back again between police and citizens.also making criminals think about it twice.his life is at stake now.i agree.seems like more respect will come out of it from all three parties involved. and yes i see harm can come out of it but good out weights the badness i believe.
Originally posted by drwizardphd
I can't find the text to this bill anywhere, so I feel that it would be naive to comment on it.
However, from what I can find, the biggest problem I have is the part about shooting someone who breaks into your campsite. It's hard to define what is legally your campsite, and from my years of experience camping all over the country, people tend to walk into your campsite all the time.
Camping is a fairly communal event, and frequently you will have folks come by to ask to borrow something or maybe offer to share some extra food they've prepared or something. I know that most gun owners are very responsible people who would never harm an innocent person, but the key word there is "most".
I'm just picturing the inevitable nightmare scenario - "Hey, mind if we borrow a few pieces of firewo- BAM!"
Not saying that it's a bad bill, I just really want to see how it's worded.
That's a good point, but that same mindset can be applied to lots of other crimes that lack concrete evidence. For example, there are probably tons of "rapists" who were simply engaging in consensual sex, but the woman decided to claim that he raped her in order to get some free money or whatever. It's a really blurry area in the criminal justice system. I guess that's what juries are for.
If the other person is dead how is anyone supposed to know who started the confrontation in the first place.
Originally posted by banandar123
That's a good point, but that same mindset can be applied to lots of other crimes that lack concrete evidence. For example, there are probably tons of "rapists" who were simply engaging in consensual sex, but the woman decided to claim that he raped her in order to get some free money or whatever. It's a really blurry area in the criminal justice system. I guess that's what juries are for.
If the other person is dead how is anyone supposed to know who started the confrontation in the first place.
I was always under the impression that self-defense by use of firearm was allowed anywhere as long as it was actual self-defense. However, I know a few years ago here in Louisville, Kentucky, there was a Supreme Court ruling that set a precedent to allow people to "defend their vehicle" after some dude shot a guy that tried to hijack his car or something, so I guess i might be wrong afterall. Anyway, how is it in the rest of the USA? Is self-defense allowed only in the home in the majority of the nation?
I have heard that in some states, that have a self defense law, but it doesn't go far enough and if you injure someone who is breaking into your house, the criminal can sue you. Now i'm not sure i believe this,
Originally posted by ucantcmeThat is part of the reason I am torn about this. I can't decide if the good will out weigh the bad.
2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;
(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or
(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.
Originally posted by groingrinder
Anytime a stranger forces their way into my home. I will kill them in self defense. It will always be self defense. How can it be otherwise?