Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Castle Doctrine
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11721
Page 1 of 1

Author:  mnsmokepole [ Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Castle Doctrine

Is Minnesota a Castle Doctrine state?

Is Minnesota a Make My Day state?

Author:  SultanOfBrunei [ Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:07 pm ]
Post subject: 

No.

There has been an effort to remove the duty to retreat, though.

Author:  Pakrat [ Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:33 pm ]
Post subject: 

Minnesota is a "castle doctrine" state. You have no duty to retreat in your own home.

Author:  PocketProtector642 [ Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

but you do in your yard

Author:  JimC [ Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

If you shoot in your home, Make damn sure you have no other choice first.

Author:  gunflint [ Fri Feb 06, 2009 7:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

One could die trying to make that decision.

Author:  Andrew Rothman [ Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

JimC wrote:
If you shoot in your home, Make damn sure you have no other choice first.


You may shoot in your own home to prevent the commission of a felony, or to protect yourself or another reluctant participant from death or great bodily harm where no lesser force will suffice.

Author:  jdege [ Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

Andrew Rothman wrote:
JimC wrote:
If you shoot in your home, Make damn sure you have no other choice first.


You may shoot in your own home to prevent the commission of a felony.

Not all felonies. The list in 609.06 applies, which basically limits it to resisting offenses against the person, or in resisting trespass upon or unlawful interference with real or personal property.

You can't shoot someone for felony tax evasion, even if he does it in your living room.

Author:  MostlyHarmless [ Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ah, yes. "Reluctant participant."

I think it's important for instructors using this lovely turn of phrase to point out, Andrew, that nowhere in the statutes does it say "reluctant participant."

Take a look at 609.065, which reads:

Quote:
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 wonder whether the interplay between 609.06 and 609.065, to which jedge alludes, was intentional by the legislature or merely a product of the the revisor's imagination.

Author:  Andrew Rothman [ Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

MostlyHarmless wrote:
Ah, yes. "Reluctant participant."

I think it's important for instructors using this lovely turn of phrase to point out, Andrew, that nowhere in the statutes does it say "reluctant participant."


Nope. And what a simple world it would be if the statutes were the sum total of the law.

They are not. Finders of law are bound by precedent, and the reluctant participant test is firmly established precedent.

See this thread for more detail:

http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/vi ... php?t=1778

Author:  Andrew Rothman [ Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

jdege wrote:
Andrew Rothman wrote:
JimC wrote:
If you shoot in your home, Make damn sure you have no other choice first.


You may shoot in your own home to prevent the commission of a felony.

Not all felonies. The list in 609.06 applies, which basically limits it to resisting offenses against the person, or in resisting trespass upon or unlawful interference with real or personal property.

You can't shoot someone for felony tax evasion, even if he does it in your living room.


Got a cite?

Author:  gunflint [ Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:26 pm ]
Post subject: 

I believe that you can unless the felony tax evader is a cabinet member.

Author:  Fyrwys [ Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:39 am ]
Post subject: 

gunflint wrote:
I believe that you can unless the felony tax evader is a cabinet member.


Ah, but then it's no longer a felony.

Author:  jdege [ Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:03 pm ]
Post subject: 

Andrew Rothman wrote:
jdege wrote:
Not all felonies. The list in 609.06 applies, which basically limits it to resisting offenses against the person, or in resisting trespass upon or unlawful interference with real or personal property.

You can't shoot someone for felony tax evasion, even if he does it in your living room.


Got a cite?


Yep.

Quote:
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.


Notice that this is a limitation on 609.06. not a stand-alone provision. And 609.06 allows for the use of force only in certain circumstances.

609.065 authorizes the use of deadly force only when the use of force is authorized by 609.06 AND when it is necessary in " 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."

And of the list of circumstances in which 609.06 authorizes the use of force, the ones that are most likely to involve the commission of a felony are:

Quote:
(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or

(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property;


There are, true, other provisions in which force is authorized by 609.06, but they are either circumstances in which there can be no felony offense involved, or which require that you be acting under the direction of a public officer, etc. They aren't generally relevant. (I'm trying to envision a scenario in which someone can be both authorized to use force under 609.06(8) and is authorized in use deadly force under the "preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode" provision of 609.065, but I'm not having much luck.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/