By the President of the County Attorney's Association:
"This proposal creates a subjective standard of reasonableness rather than the objective standard in current law. The issue becomes what was in the mind of the person using deadly force, rather than how a reasonable person would react under the same circumstances."
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/comm ... 96336.html
The problem with Mr. Backstrom's primary thesis is that the Stand Your Ground bill (HF498, Rep. Cornish) DOES NO SUCH THING.
The test for self-defense in current law -- the actor reasonably believes etc. -- set out under the strikeovers in lines 1.14 thru 1.17 is exactly the same as the test set out (more clearly we hope) in new Subdivision 2(a) -- the individual reasonably believes ... imminent threat (line 2.15) -- and in new subdivision 2(b) -- the individual reasonably believes ... felony threat (line 2.18). As any first-year law student learns "reasonable" is the hallmark of an objective standard of conduct.
Unless the actor meets the objective test of Subdivision 2, he or she cannot use deadly force (defined the same way it is for police) at all.
The new "no retreat" rule is only operative after the threat is REASONABLY determined to by of serious injury or death, or a felony in the home. Remember that. No use of deadly force whatsoever is authorized until the TRADITIONAL "reasonable person" TEST now set out in Subdivision 2 has been met.
Once action in self-defense is authorized, Subdivision 3 adopts the MAJORITY RULE in America and allows the defender (the victim of the attack) more freedom of action. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in 1921, "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."
Now, facing an imminent Subd. 2 threat, the defending victim need not turn his back on the assailant (risking more harm) and need not make fine distinctions how much defensive force will succeed. In this moment of peril, the law should favor the defender.
She can choose to flee, she can choose to fight, she can choose whatever defensive tactics she hopes will work for her. She can stand her ground and, as police officers are trained, she can use whatever force she honestly believes is required to defeat the attack. She can use superior force when she believes it is required, for example, the victim may use a gun when facing a 3-foot piece of rebar; a knife; a large piece of broken glass; or a larger, stronger, meaner, younger assailant. The victim can focus on saving herself or himself from the imminent threat of harm and not be distracted by nice legal distinctions that have no place IN the moment when effective (and practical) defensive action is needed.
