Posted on 02/16/2012 7:53:15 PM PST by ButThreeLeftsDo
Key police chiefs and county prosecutors joined together on Thursday to urge Minnesota lawmakers to not pass legislation that would give people more freedom to use deadly force when protecting themselves.
The legislation creates the presumption that a person in their home or other dwelling who uses deadly force does so believing they are in danger of harm or death. The bill also removes the obligation for that person to retreat from such a situation. It's headed for a full Senate vote soon.
Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom said at a Capitol press conference that the bill shifts the standard to use deadly force from the current "reasonable person" standard to a more subjective one.
"Under this proposal, it would become what is in the person's mind as to whether they feel threatened," Backstrom said. "That is the controlling factor. Not what a reasonable person would have done when facing similar circumstances."
SNIP
Dayton said last week he wasn't sure if he'd sign or veto the bill, but mentioned that opposition from law enforcement officials would likely influence his decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at kstp.com ...
If you change the standard to be "what is in the actual person's mind" rather than "what a reasonable person in a similar situation would believe", you take the jury's judgment out of the equation. The prosecutor must actually PROVE what was in a person's mind at a crucial moment... pretty much an impossible task... and as the article states, a person could shoot anyone, even an invited guest, in his living room, and simply claim that what was in his mind at that time was appropriate for the statute. Even if hi fear was unreasonable or even utterly implausible, it would not matter. He would be protected by this new statute.
Again, if the opponents and the journalism major are stating things correctly, I'd agree, it's a bad change. As long as they allow self-defense in the home, and don't require any further retreat... and allow the reasonable person standard to guide the jury in determining whether a lethal response was proper... I think that's what is best, and least able to be abused by defense attorneys seeking loopholes for actual murderers.
Isn’t your Secy of State Mark Ritchie? If so, he’s a red, period. Go to www.keywiki.org, Search for Mark Ritchie and see the proof.
Minnesota has been the home of gutless law enforcement since the days of that fruitloop Minneapolis Chief of Police whose name stated with a “B” - Bourza?.
ALso one of third “Jihad-Central” hotspots in the US.
Yep. You get the scum you deserve, and the criminals get you.
The Constitution was designed to protect you from police chiefs and prosecutors such as these. So if they are "agin" it, it must be good.
*I* don’t, because I didn’t vote in the freaks. The pinheads who did vote them in, do deserve it. I’ll get some more ammunition and protect my castle. The Twin Cities are a cesspool. That’s why I don’t live there any more.
Yeah, it’s a real tragedy that the courts would have to start at a presumption of innocence for the homeowner/guy who defends himself, and put the burden of proof on the DA to prove otherwise.
That whole concept of presumed innocent until proven guilty is a real impediment to the DA and the cops and the courts when they have to go after law abiding citizens defending themselves from thug criminals.
The old "unavoidable for comment" type, eh?
The gun is also less likely to spontaneously shoot your dog or cuff your grandma.
I’d need to read the bill on the standards, but if this is normal castle doctrine, I have no problem with it at all....and I’m an attorney.
You are correct.
Those that would shoot a cop on a warrant search will shoot the cop regardless of laws.
Cops make it well known who they are and why they are there when the bust down the door to serve the warrant.
of course they might be at the wrong door and if you have a dog kiss it goodbye.. But that’s a whole nother issue.
To Thorliveshere:
There are more “pinheads” as leftist voters than sane centrists and conservatives, at least in Minnesota, so you don’t stand much of a chance until there is a major political purge of the Minnesota marxists and their supporters.
I left Maryland because it was going down the toilet due to the number of illiterate voters both white and black, who voted in crooks and commies. Look at what they did to Baltimore, once a great city, now a near Third-World cesspool of crime, drugs, and crooked politicians.
Notice it is always the Chiefs that oppose citizens rights to defend themselves?
The only question needed to be asked of any Police Officer that wants to deny law abiding citizens the right to self defemse is ask okay it is YOU not ME sitting there with your kids watching TV when the drug crazed beserker kicks your door down nad is weilding a machete. Do you drop him or do you run?
That is the problem with “no-knock” warrants - there is no notice. On another thread about this there was a whole list of them at wrong addresses. Sometimes the cops got shot, sometimes the innocent victims.
Plus the thug’s ruse of yelling “police” as they are knocking down the door.
I’m really surprised that the cops brought their own safety up as an argument. And didn’t say something like the children’s safety, accidents, etc.
Iw would kill to many democrats, so...No.
Two main reasons for their opposition:
1) After a few burglars/muggers get shot, these types of crime are likely to go down, reducing need for a larger police budget.
2) Burglars and muggers have mothers, brothers, sisters, girlfriends, other friends, etc, and these people VOTE. They tend to vote Democrat, and are a significant constituency.
Police states are called police states for a reason.
The biggest threat to my freedom is the government - that’s one reason we have the 2nd Amendment.
“Reasonable person” is legal code for "Indict the citizen and have him prove his actions were reasonable to a jury, meanwhile bankrupting him in the process".
The text of the bill demands the presumption that the defender's action was reasonable if he shoots somebody who is in his house illegally, or attempting to forcibly enter, and is "immune from prosecution". If he's brought to trial anyway, the prosecution has the burden of proof to show that it was NOT self-defense.
A link to the text of the bill is at post #37. The bill creates the presumption that if somebody UNLAWFULLY enters your home, you have reasonable grounds to use deadly force. Read for yourself.
When the defendant claims self-defense, the bill puts the burden of proof on the prosecutor. In cases where the shot person is a fellow resident, invited in, or otherwise was there legitimately, the presumption does not apply.
One thing it does do which is of value for victims of domestic violence, is that if the victim has an order of protection, and the subject of the order shows up, then the subject is there unlawfully and (in my opinion by my reading, and I am not a lawyer) may be shot on sight.
Now that is an outstanding remark!!
Can I borrow it?
In MPLS, the boundary between criminal and police officer is blurred.
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.