Gun bill: It's a chilling license to kill (MN Castle Law Insanity)

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/121602764.html

Minnesota lawmakers will soon have an opportunity to signal whether they support the public's interests or a narrow special interest. We should watch closely as they cast their votes on HF1467, a bill only the gun lobby could love.

While proponents portray the bill's primary provision as an expansion of the right to self-defense, law enforcement overwhelmingly opposes it as a threat to officer and public safety. In too many instances, it is a license to kill.

Americans resonate to the clarion call of "the Castle Doctrine," the long-held belief stemming from British common law that a person's home is his or her castle, and that people are justified in taking whatever measures might be necessary in protecting hearth and family.

No one argues against this established right.

<more>

I feel safer already.

Legalized murder

yup

Simply claiming to be scared is not enough of a reason to use deadly force. You have to convince others that you had a real reason to feel your or your loved ones life was being threatened at the time you made use of deadly force. This is not a free pass to use deadly force just for the hell of it as you and others are implying.

And if you feel inclined to counter it, then I suggest you post evidence from some of the many other states that have similar laws to this one proving your point. If this really is as you say, then there should be plenty of evidence out there of this "legalized murder."

When there is already a dead body lying there.

This article, written by a police chief, posits that there will be more people who will be more willing to shoot first, with the usually delusional belief that they are justified.

"This article, written by a police chief, posits that there will be more people who will be more willing to shoot first, with the usually delusional belief that they are justified."

Police chiefs, and other political creatures, have been positing this for the last 20+ years of re-claimed Second Amendment Rights. It still has yet to come to pass.

But I'm sure it will happen any day now, right?

What I think the previous poster fails to realize is that the vast VAST majority of gun owners have no desire to shoot another human being if it can at all be avoided. This law will not encourage such people to use any more force than they would have used prior to the law. What it WILL do is give added legal protection to those who ARE forced to use a firearm in self defense.

"I don't make the law, I only enforce it!" Sure......

We've seen his name before:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x297118

Bullshit


Yup


Heh

around the country.

Thank goodness we have Dayton to veto all this Republican crap.

Consequence to a Dayton veto:

Governor Michelle Bachman

Be careful what you wish for.

Yeah, Dayton vetoes a ridiculously scary NRA wet dream bill, and that causes everyone in Minnesota to put aside the fact that she's batshit insane.

Poll: Majority of Minnesotans ‘embarrassed’ by Bachmann
http://minnesotaindependent.com/55222/majority-of-minnesotans-embarrassed-by-bachmann

My guess is you fall into that camp?

****BLAM*****!!!!!!!!

Supported reasonable, common sense gun laws.

I guess they're only reasonable , common sense , gun laws when
They restrict gun rights.

:woohoo:

:wtf:

but

....If the proposed bill becomes law, for example, there would be nothing to prevent one gang member from shooting another and claiming immunity because of having felt threatened by a rival.

I can see it now---"he/she was reaching for his gun" (but I was faster)....


This bill encourages escalating conflict. It sanctions shooting when there is a threat of substantial harm, allows the shooter to continue shooting until the danger is "eliminated," and frees the shooter of all civil or criminal liability for innocent bystanders who get shot.

As Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom said in his testimony in opposition to the bill: "It creates a subjective standard of the reasonableness of a person's actions in using deadly force, rather than the objective standard in current law.

In other words, the issue becomes what is in the mind of the person using deadly force rather than how a reasonable person would have reacted under the same circumstances."

Who will gainsay the shooter who claims reasonable threat if the only other witness to the shooting is now dead?

Backstrom quotes a former president of the National District Attorneys' Association who said that these "shoot first/ask questions later" laws being pushed by the gun lobby in one state after another "basically give citizens more rights to use deadly force than we give police officers, and with less review."

And, it should be said, without the training a police officer receives.

....If the proposed bill becomes law, for example, there would be nothing to prevent one gang member from shooting another and claiming immunity because of having felt threatened by a rival.

I can see it now---"he/she was reaching for his gun" (but I was faster)....


This bill encourages escalating conflict. It sanctions shooting when there is a threat of substantial harm, allows the shooter to continue shooting until the danger is "eliminated," and frees the shooter of all civil or criminal liability for innocent bystanders who get shot.

As Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom said in his testimony in opposition to the bill: "It creates a subjective standard of the reasonableness of a person's actions in using deadly force, rather than the objective standard in current law.

In other words, the issue becomes what is in the mind of the person using deadly force rather than how a reasonable person would have reacted under the same circumstances."

Who will gainsay the shooter who claims reasonable threat if the only other witness to the shooting is now dead?

Backstrom quotes a former president of the National District Attorneys' Association who said that these "shoot first/ask questions later" laws being pushed by the gun lobby in one state after another "basically give citizens more rights to use deadly force than we give police officers, and with less review."

And, it should be said, without the training a police officer receives.

...this scenario does not appear to be playing out in other states that have similar laws. Perhaps that is because the scenario is not valid and there is actually more to the law than you and the quoted DA are speaking to??

It basically does four things.

...if you really can't use google at all for some reason, I could post the names here for you, but that would be pretty lame on your part to be honest. :P

don't conflate the two to pump up your numbers. How many states have an unlimited 'stand your ground' that encourages people to shoot whoever they thing might be threatening them? Besides, of course, Florida and Texas - those bastions of law and order.

And nice, extremely loaded, bullshit question as well. But in answer, here's a link. Near the bottom you will see a break down of both Castle Doctrine and Stand your Ground states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

castle doctrine with stand your ground - which the article clearly separated:

"Americans resonate to the clarion call of "the Castle Doctrine," the long-held belief stemming from British common law that a person's home is his or her castle, and that people are justified in taking whatever measures might be necessary in protecting hearth and family.

No one argues against this established right."

The article then goes on to describe how this law pushes the boundaries of even other 'stand your ground' laws.

It would be interesting to see a comparison between the list of the FIFTEEN 'stand your ground' states (all southern and western states, but for Indiana) and their relative crime/gun violence/prison statistics.

What are you trying to insinuate?

Pro-gun advocates are always so ready to pick a fight.

Look at the list, and draw your own conclusions.

If that is not your intent, you need to be clearer.

"pick a fight"? I'm trying for clear communication here. :shrug:

The two laws ARE, in fact, similar, but there are clear differences and I never even came close to imply that there weren't. You asked about castle doctrine states, and stand your ground states generally take the same rules as the castle doctrine outside of a person home (or castle).

Greetings,

I happened on this thread when researching the castle doctrine and found your (and other) responses.

It's only my opinion, but evidence suggests that others pleading common sense with you and your "Pro-gun advocates are always so ready to pick a fight" buddy are clearly wasting their time.

Were you able to peek outside of your veiled world you might find a bright shining sun but also the reality that many times that innocent people are the victims of crimes. With 1.3 million violent crimes in 2009, the innocent victims due the consideration of a law that clearly states their legal right to defend themselves.

Those of your ilk that unfortunately have been a victim of violent crime such as this bill stands to address, are likely not here to communicate their change of opinion.

Continue to believe what you like and we, the 'PRO-GUN' crazies that have such a misshapen belief that in our own home, we should be able to protect ourselves and our families will fight for the right to do so.

A criminal intruder who breaks into my home at 3:00 am is presumed to mean ill-will to me and my family. You may pause to inquire of his intentions over coffee but I will not.

I do not know where everyone gets the idea that LEOs train half as much as folks think they do, much less the range time. SWAT maybe, but the rest are not some magical SEAL member.

Governor Dayton has the good sense to sign this bill into law.
It's a watered down version of Florida's stand your ground law,
Where we all know that the blood is flowing in the streets.

Right.


I love this part:

"It creates a subjective standard of the reasonableness of a person's actions in using deadly force, rather than the objective standard in current law."

Okay, so what's the objective standard, Mr. County Attorney?

"In other words, the issue becomes what is in the mind of the person using deadly force rather than how a reasonable person would have reacted under the same circumstances."

Ah. Okay. I commend you for your objectivity.





And how is this defined? "...no one has ever been prosecuted under Minnesota statute for legitimate self-defense."

By not being found guilty after the County Attorney brings the intended victim up on manslaughter or homicide charges? Funny how the article doesn't address this issue.

Because, after all, if you are prosecuted under Minnesota statute and found guilty, your claim of self-defense is by definition illegitimate.

Backstrom quotes a former president of the National District Attorneys' Association who said that these "shoot first/ask questions later" laws being pushed by the gun lobby in one state after another "basically give citizens more rights to use deadly force than we give police officers, and with less review."

And, it should be said, without the training a police officer receives.

So cops can't shoot people that ambush them with a weapon? Gee, I didn't know that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

of the law.

Take your pick.

I'm not that paranoid that I think I need to have a gun with me whenever I go outside.

But your insinuation is noted.

I mean, you have read the actual bill, and not just what the Strib said, amirite?

Looks like some people just don't dig awkward questions.

An individual who uses force, including deadly force, according to this section or as otherwise provided by law in defense of the individual, the individual's dwelling, or another individual is justified in using such force and is immune from any civil liability or criminal prosecution for that act.

The bill doesn't distinguish civil liability protection from suits brought by criminals from bystanders. This is blanket immunity from civil suits.

Get your facts right before you look like an arrogant ass.

(a) An individual
7.16 who uses force, including deadly force, according to this section or as otherwise provided
7.17 by law in defense of the individual, the individual's dwelling, or another individual is
7.18 justified in using such force and is immune from any civil liability or criminal prosecution
7.19 for that act.

If you shoot an innocent bystander, you are not using force "according the this section" and therefore not justified in using such force.

And also therefore not immune from civil and criminal liability.


Iow,, you are only immune if you are justified in using force, killing or injuring an innocent bystander is is never justified as a result of this statute.


This bill ABSOLUTELY distinguishes civil liability protection, from suits brought brought by injured criminals, and injured innocent bystanders.

The relevant portion of the statute that is germain to the above(according to this section) is quoted here below. note that no authorization is given (according to this section) to kill or injure an innocent bystander.

"Subd. 2. Circumstances when authorized. (a) The use of deadly force by an
6.22individual is justified under this section when the act is undertaken:
6.23(1) to resist or prevent the commission of a felony in the individual's dwelling;
6.24(2) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is an offense or
6.25attempted offense that imminently exposes the individual or another person to substantial
6.26bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death; or
6.27(3) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is the commission or
6.28imminent commission of a forcible felony."

I'll be hunting wild turkey.

If i happen to spot a CROW, would you like me to get that for you?

a bystander hit during an otherwise legal act of defense? It doesn't.

Sound's more like you've been drinking wild turkey.

"
that act" as they pertain to this statute.
Killing an innocent bystander Is not part of " that act" that is included in this bill.

It is a separate act, and not subject to the immunity protections in the bill.
That's not a "try" it's a fact.

If that's the case then genius, why does the texas statute specifically indicate that the civil protection only apply to the perp?

Answer, because you're full of shit! A bystander injured in a single defense act might be unable to claim civil damages under a reading of this poorly designed statute.

Makes it very clear which acts are protected. This is simple english.

Killing or injuring an innocent is not listed in this statute, it is an act that is,
therefore, not protected by the statute against either civil or criminal
Liability. This bill doesn't need the same verbiage as Texas's
Because it does not authorize killing an innocent, nor does it offer protections
For any act it does not authorize.

so explain to me why they differentiate civil immunity from the perpetrator?

Simply put, if I act in self defense and shoot an attacker but the bullet I fire inadvertently strikes a bystander, that is a single act and Texas has reaffirmed this by differentiating civil suits by the attacker from other civil liability by limiting the protection only from the perp.

By not differentiating perp from bystander the MN statue extends civil liability to any consequences of the act. It doesn't even make provisions for suits resulting from negligent or reckless behavior it simply provides a blanket civil protection. What part of "immune from any civil liability or criminal prosecution" aren't you getting? A single pull of the trigger cannot be two separate 'act's.

Do some research:

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1474/Justification-Self-Defense-Risk-innocent-bystanders.html

If a defender, who is justified in using force against an attacker, instead (or also) accidentally harms (or risks harm to) an innocent bystander, the defender does not lose the justification for harming the aggressor. Is the defender's harming the bystander also justified? Generally, the defendant's harm to the innocent bystander is also justified (Smith v. State, 419 S.E.2d 74 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)). But the defendant may not be justified if he acts carelessly or endangers a large number of bystanders. Under the MPC, recklessly or negligently harming an innocent bystander would not be a justification for an offense in which recklessness or negligence suffices to establish culpability (section 3.09(3)).

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Accidental+Killing

http://books.google.com/books?id=KUWocJU6xuoC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=bystander+struck+act+self+defense&source=bl&ots=BZt-3a1HiE&sig=mPE39OuTk8C5SR_DiZHZzVGwOq4&hl=en&ei=6mfNTZasE6Th0gHR24ngDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

The bill ONLY protects act that it lists in the statute.
Where in the statute does it list , killing it injuring an innocent bystander.

Chief knight very publicly stated , what is essentially your claim.

Did you notice any change in the bill due to the cheifs concerns ?

Not one about this issue has been made. Because no change is necessary.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

from Minnesota if you can find one that applies. A Georgia court of appeals case has no bearing whatsoever on Minnesota law, since it was not decided in the same jurisdiction as this bill.
Common law it would appear also has no bearing on this bill, which means that the text of the bill itself will be law, and my reading of it was correct. a Judge can establish common law that pertains to this bill, only after it becomes law.

The U.S. is a common law country. In all states except Louisiana (which is based on the French civil code), the common law of England was adopted as the general law of the state, EXCEPT when a statute provides otherwise. Common law has no statutory basis; judges establish common law through written opinions that are binding on future decisions of lower courts in the same jurisdiction.


http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c070.htm

so your argument for common law does not apply to this bill,or statute if it becomes law. This bill defines ,force and deadly force.


(c) "Deadly force" means force used by an individual with the purpose of causing,
5.16or which the individual should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing,
5.17great bodily harm or death. The intentional discharge of a firearm by an individual at
5.18another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes
5.19deadly force. A threat to cause great bodily harm or death, by the production of a weapon
5.20or otherwise, constitutes reasonable force and not deadly force, when the individual's
5.21objective is limited to creating an expectation that the individual will use deadly force
5.22only if authorized by law.

The bill would provide immunity from civil and criminal liability from the use of force only as defined in it's own text, since common law does not yet apply, as no Judge has issued an opinion on it yet.

(a) An individual
7.16who uses force, including deadly force, according to this section or as otherwise provided
7.17by law in defense of the individual, the individual's dwelling, or another individual is
7.18justified in using such force and is immune from any civil liability or criminal prosecution
7.19for that act.
So by omitting authorization for any acts beyond force, or deadly force as defined above, this bill can not, and does not offer, immunity
from civil liability or criminal liability, for killing or injuring an innocent bystander.

Blanket civil liability immunity FAIL.

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY . A It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the defendant who uses force or at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 , Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s against a person who at the time of the use of force or deadly force, as applicable was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant.

...which apply only to the person who was committing the offense.

Hows that working for you smart guy?

You managed to produce what the poster was asking for, after the original poster he was conversing with failed to do so for an extended period of time. You don't have to be such a smart ass about it.

he posts a wise-ass "did you read the bill response" but post no evidence of his own familiarity, then follows with a taunt.

welcome to the DU gun crowd bullying 101.

see post # 57 please.

Check your state laws as they vary.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x297118#297118


We've seen him before.

when their life is threatened?

Or is this bill about changing imminent danger to "reasonably" feels threatened."?

Read the bill; it is short.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1467.1.html&session=ls87