Posted on 07/28/2008 12:25:04 PM PDT by jurroppi1
I need to know about my right to defend myself as it is applicable in Minnesota. I have a person making threats against me and my family, he assaulted me (unsuccessfully I might add), and threw a 6' tall Shepard's hook into our picture window trying to taunt me to come out and fight (I called 911, got him arrested, but he got out in less than 6 hours and is back in my neighborhood).
Will an OFP provide me anymore levity should I need to protect myself of my family with deadly force?
When can I use deadly force to protect myself in MN (does the perp have to be in my house or just on my property threatening my family or me / our property with bodily harm)?
WELCOME TO FREE REPUBLIC’S MINNESOTA PING LIST!
99 MEMBERS AND GROWING...!
FREEPMAIL ME IF YOU WANT ON OR OFF THIS LIST!
I do not know the law in Minnesota. In my opinion it really doesn’t matter what “the law” is.
My guideline is this: One may use deadly force whenever the threat one is facing makes one TRULY fear for one’s life or the lives of those whose protection is one’s responsibility (e.g. family and invited guests on one’s property).
I live in Virginia. We do not have a specific “Castle Doctrine” law in place to protect us from improper prosecution in self-defense cases. However, I will continue to use the above guideline regardless.
As the old “cliche” says: It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
Just because it is an old cliche doesn’t mean it is NOT true.
We’re not debating this in an abstract way. You need actionable and professional legal advice and you need it quickly. That means that you need to talk to a lawyer in MN, someone competent in these matters, or you need to talk to your local DA, because he would be the one bringing charges against you if you run afoul of the law.
PS - Anyone who threw a six foot shepherd’s hook through the front window of my house would already be dead.
I would talk to a lawyer. Or take a concealed carry course, where they cover the legal ins-and-outs of self defense.
You should also ask a lawyer with whom you consult for the definition of “reasonable fear” and have that explained to you.
A quick, “plain reading” of “reasonable fear” is this: If other reasonable people, eg, those on your jury, presented with the same facts that you had AT THE TIME, come to the conclusion that you were under threat of death or great bodily injury/harm, then you are said to have had a “reasonable fear” that justified a lethal (or “possibly lethal”) response with a weapon.
This is in contrast to “stark fear,” which isn’t necessarily going to stand up in a court that you thought through what you needed to do.
Generally speaking, if someone has forced their way into your house, you’re inside, they’re carrying a weapon (it need not be a gun or knife - a bat or piece of pipe would fit the definition of ‘weapon’), then you have a reasonable fear. Some states now require you to retreat. Some states do not.
The only state where you can shoot someone on your property (ie, in your yard, not in your house) to my knowledge is Texas, and it has to be at night. In all other states where I’ve read court cases, you must be in your house. If someone assaults you or threatens you in your yard, you have to retreat to your dwelling. If the attack pursues you into your dwelling, now the attacker has crossed a pretty clear threshold in most, but not all, states and state case law.
You NEED to talk to an attorney in your state.
One more thing, and most (but not all) lawyers will tell you this:
If (God forbid) you ever do have to shoot, when (not if) the cops and DA are talking to you, you tell them you shot to “step the attack[er].” You didn’t shoot to wound him, you didn’t shoot to kill him. And whatever you do, don’t drop the SOB on the floor and then walk up to him and “finish him off.” Never mind what other people say they’d do. They’re not going to be the people under indictment from the DA in your situation, they have the luxury of not being there.
No, you shoot to STOP THE ATTACK. That’s it. That’s all you’re allowed to do. If the perp runs away, you cannot follow. If the perp tries to make it back out your door, you let him. Once he breaks off the attack, if you pursue or continue shooting at him, the situation changes instantly from him attacking you to you attacking him.
If he dropped dead because you’re a heck of a shot and you plugged him on the first round, well that’s OK. The attack stopped. So did the attacker’s heart. Oh well. But if you’ve put two rounds into him and he runs out your front door... you LET HIM GO.
I know this stuff because I was buddies with lawyers like Pete Kasler, a JD who was a specialist in CCW and lethal response cases, ie, I had the benefit of talking over lunches/dinners with a for-real lawyer specializing in this stuff for years. But what Pete taught me applied to California in particular, and western states in general. Neither of which describes your situation in MN.
You need to talk to a lawyer in your state who is familiar with this area of the law. There are so many snares and traps for the layman reading the law in this area that it isn’t funny in the least.
It didn’t make it through the window, or he would be dead!
Sorry, I interpreted “into” to mean it made it through. My mistake.
from wiki “castle doctrine”, section “stand your ground”:
In a Minnesota case, State v. Gardner (1905) where a man was acquitted for killing another man who attempted to kill him with a rifle, Judge Jaggard stated:
“ The doctrine of “retreat to the wall” had its origin [in Medieval England] before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the general use of and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs, and even knives, as a justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to require [an attempt to escape] when experienced men, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or cause great bodily harm[6] ”
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States when upholding the no duty to retreat maxim that detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.[7]
My take: unless he’s armed or in your home, unfortunately he’s just a nuisance...
DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV.
Man - good luck with that, what a nightmare. I saw some previews for a movie like this, and the evil neighbor is a cop. (Maybe get some ideas from the flick!?)
I’m no legal expert, but if I were on a jury I would be more understanding of someone that took precautions in addition to having a firearm and the training to use it well. Such as good locks on the door, good lighting, perhaps even a cheap security camera (saw a cheap $250 system at Costco with 4 wireless cameras that hook into your vcr/dvd recorder.) Plus a restraining order if that is doable. Also, with the cameras you might gain more proof of his harassment to put him away for a longer period. Although doesn’t sound like he is the type to worry about those consequences too much.
And - at the risk of sounding like a weany, perhaps there is someway to mediate the disagreement. If he’s pissed ‘cuz you yell at him for driving too fast in a street full of kids - that’s his fault. If he’s pissed at you because you leave your garbage cans out on the sidewalk all week - maybe you can do something. Of course with him throwing a heavy sharp object at your window - obviously trying to hurt someone, perhaps it is beyond this stage. However, I think even a little bit of mediation, or an attempt - even if it doesn’t work - would still look good for a jury. (”I tried to work things out with him, blah, blah blah....”)
And, in spite of taking the additional care in security, my other tagline is fitting: “Ever Vigilent, Never Fearful”. (Although my current one is as well!) Good luck.
More to the point:
There is the “reasonably believes” great harm section, but also (”or”) the “preventing... a felony” in “place of abode.”
609.065, Minnesota Statutes 2006
Copyright © 2006 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.
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.
History: 1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.065; 1978 c 736 s 1; 1986 c 444
“Texas, and it has to be at night”
I don’t think so. Google: Joe Horn
I believe it was afternoon when the shooting happened.
Get competent legal advice, pronto!
Do NOT expect any leniency, sympathy or help from law enforcement.
I know one thing for certain- you cannot escalate the situation. If you are attacked with fists, for example, and you resort to a club in defense, then YOU have escalated the situatuon and YOU are now in the wrong.
Basically, you must retreat until you either escape or cannot retreat any further. THEN you can defend yourself.
It’s stupid, but that’s Minnesota.
I wish you good luck.
2. Look up the law on the internet-it should be found on your state.gov website in some form.
3. Go see the police chief/sheriff and let him know your are very concerned, ask for his advice ( but listen carefully-not all chiefs are on your side...): get a order of protection, even though it is merely a piece of paper-it will go a long ways in court if the worst occurs!
4. The basic right to life means that you can and should defend yourself and your family if:
the instigator has the means to cause grave injury or death;
he has the opportunity (meaning if a knife, he is not more than about 25 feet from you) a handgun, 50 yards or so (very vague-no one can tell how good a shot someone is...) to do so;
he is about to commence or is actually attacking you.
Most state self-defense laws are very near this description.
make sure you are NOT the instigator-unless protected by Castle Doctrine laws (be VERY Careful), otherwise HE may have the right of self-dense!!!
If something does happen, and you defend yourself, DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING! investigators will find out how it went down and any tampering is an indicator of guilt.... DO NOT TELL POLICE ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOUR NAME etc, until after meeting with privately and in the presence of your attorney. The police will understand, and if they don't tough poo poo on them.
(They will lean on you to tell your story-they want ot go home too, but resisit the tempation to blabbermouth (think name, rank & serial number....). Get a CCW, and training and CARRY IT ALWAYS!!!!!! (except as prohibited by law, of course).
God Bless & MOLON LABE PM me if you want more CCW and self-defense information. NRA Rifle and Pistol Instructor, Mo CCW Trainer, 23 year Army Infantry/Eng combat veteran (recently retired)
This is not an abstract question, but a request for legal advice. You need to hire an attorney — not request layman opinions on an online forum.
Second — to those offering advice ... I am unsure of Minnesota Law, but it is plausible that you could be held liable for any actions taken under your advice. You don’t know all the facts, and you only know one side of this story. As an attorney, I would suggest not getting involved in an actual legal dispute that could result in someone getting shot.
H
I appreciate all the advice I’ve been given thus far in this thread. I am awaiting a return phone call from the county attorney and will discuss further with that person. I will also ask him whether a RO or OFP is warranted and what “extra protections” if any that may give me.
The manager of the community I am in is getting him served with a no trespass order for the community, so if I want to I can ask the police to enforce aggravated trespass on him (charge him) if I witness him in the community.
What I see right now is that it looks like the clear and present danger inside my home (not just on property), unless a gun or knife is involved on the other party’s part (taking aim at me), but basically if I see imminent danger that appears to have no other reasonable outcome other than the threat or use of deadly force in my immediate dwelling, then I have to retreat (which is what I did in the original case.
This guy threatened to bomb my house and kill my family, so I’m a little nervous right now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.