Inaccurate info on Minnesota CCW laws on this site

[GregW]

I'm a relatively new Minnesota permit holder. Unless the information I have is wrong, Minnesota is not a Castle Doctrine state as indicated on this web site. Minnesota HF 498, introduced by State rep Tony Cornish, was defeated on March 13, 2008. According to information presented at my training course, to be legally authorized to use deadly force in Minnesota, the four following conditions must be in place, and must remain in place during the entire duration of an attack:
1. You must be (reasonably) in immediate fear of death or great bodily harm for yourself or another;
2. You must have reluctantly entered the conflict. You must not be viewed as the aggressor, or have done anything to escalate an incident;
3. You must have no reasonable means of retreat;
4. No lesser force would have sufficed to stop the threat.

Whether or not all of these four condition existed will be up to the interpretation of a county prosecutor. An excellent book for any CCW holder, particularly in Minnesota is titled "Minnesota Permit to Carry a Firearm Fundamentals" by Michael Martin -- it is available on Amazon

 

[theicemanmpls]

Greg, where do you get this info.

Look up the following.
609.06 and 609.065
Link Removed

The rules you mentioned, 1 thru 4 are a great idea to avoid a conviction or civil suit.

however,
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.

are not the words "preventing the commission of a felony in the actors place of abode", a castle doctrine?

Are you trying to sell a book?

 

[GregW]

No, I'm not trying to sell a book -- I recently bought the book myself, and was impressed enough with it to mention it. The NRA legislative action page refers to MN HF 498 as a Castle doctrine, and states that it was defeated in March 2008. The Castle doctrine does not require a person to retreat from a place or situation, even outside of your home, if they have the legal right to be there -- if you Google Castle doctrine, there are a number of more detailed explanations of the principle. It is basically a right to stand your ground. The other more important aspect of the Castle doctrine is that you are immune from criminal prosecution if you shoot someone in the act of protecting yourself or someone else, and further provides that if someone, by force or stealth, breaks into your home or vehicle, you have the right to assume they have the intent to harm you.

Here is a press release from Rep Cornish regarding HF 498, which was defeated in 2008:

State Representative Tony Cornish

281 State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
651-296-4240

For Immediate Release

Posted: 2/1/2007
NEWS RELEASE
REP. CORNISH AUTHORS CASTLE DOCTRINE LEGISLATION
ST. PAUL – If an intruder breaks into your home in the middle of the night, should you flee or should you have the right to stand your ground?

In an effort to allow Minnesota citizens to protect themselves and their property from law-breaking criminals that break into a home, car or business, State Representative Tony Cornish (R-Good Thunder) is authoring legislation allowing the use of deadly force against an unwanted attacker.

“This is a measure that empowers the citizen rather than the criminal,” Cornish said. “We would be sending a message to victims that they have the option to used deadly force if they are in danger, instead of being forced to run away and allowing the criminal to be in charge of your property.”

The legislation is known as the “Castle Doctrine,” relates to the ancient common law notion that a home is one’s castle and the king or queen of the house has the right to defend it.

The Castle Doctrine legislation has several notable provisions, which cover a person’s home, vehicle or business:
• Removes the "duty to retreat" (leave your property and run) when attacked in a place you have a right to be, and allows victims to stand their ground.
• Creates the presumption that an attacker or intruder intends to do great bodily harm. Therefore force, including deadly force, may be used to protect yourself, your family and others in the face of attack.
• Provides that people using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using that force.

Since the early 1990’s, Minnesota's higher courts have ruled that one has a “duty to retreat, if possible" when attacked anywhere outside of one's dwelling. This bill would permit a person to stand his ground if attacked anywhere - either inside or outside of his home. But to use lethal force away from the home, that person must have a reasonable belief that he is in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death from another person.

Cornish added that the bill does not allow a person to use force against police for entering their home for valid reasons. It also does not prohibit a person from criminal charges if a prosecutor believes the victim acted irresponsibly, however, the burden of proof fall to the prosecution.

“Criminals have no business breaking into the homes of law-abiding citizens and terrorizing them,” Cornish said. “We have the right to bear arms, and we should also have the option to use those arms if a robber or rapist threatens our safety.”

The book I mentioned talks about the Castle Doctrine and mentions a specific incident in Minnesota of a 73 year old man who shot and killed a home intruder, and had to wait for 80 days for the Anoka County Prosecutor to decide not to charge the homeowner. The Castle Doctrine removes the subjective reasonable force language (and a Prosecuting Attorney's abilities to subjectively charge someone with a crime).

 

[theicemanmpls]

Contact shadeslanding, he is a Minnesota Intructor who posts on this site. I am sure he keeps up on all the laws.

 

[Chunkychuck]

Greg, where do you get this info.

Look up the following.
609.06 and 609.065
Link Removed

The rules you mentioned, 1 thru 4 are a great idea to avoid a conviction or civil suit.

however,
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.

are not the words "preventing the commission of a felony in the actors place of abode", a castle doctrine?

Are you trying to sell a book?

As I was taught in my class last fall, the key word from what you quoted to define as a "Castle Doctrine" in 609.065 is "felony". As my instructor explained, not all entries into a home constitute a felony. Examples he gave were, "Your daughter's boyfriend whom she let in without your knowledge and you see him coming out of her room or the bathroom, or a drunken former owner of the house who has forgotten he has moved, or someone who is fleeing an attacker and came to your front door and found it open and entered. This is where I would see the MN "'defense of dwelling" is different from a "Castle Doctrine State". If I am not in fear of GBH or death I need to make darn sure a felony is being committed or about to be committed before using deadly force.

 

[theicemanmpls]

"As I was taught in my class last fall, the key word from what you quoted to define as a "Castle Doctrine" in 609.065 is "felony". As my instructor explained, not all entries into a home constitute a felony. Examples he gave were, "Your daughter's boyfriend whom she let in without your knowledge and you see him coming out of her room or the bathroom, or a drunken former owner of the house who has forgotten he has moved, or someone who is fleeing an attacker and came to your front door and found it open and entered. This is where I would see the MN "'defense of dwelling" is different from a "Castle Doctrine State". If I am not in fear of GBH or death I need to make darn sure a felony is being committed or about to be committed before using deadly force. "

What you were taught was, be very careful of what you shoot. Shooting your daughters boyfriend, a drunk, or a panicking neighbor are, in every state, very Illegal. Can you find an example of a state's castle doctrine law, and post it? I am interested in reading that.
In 609.065, I believe the word felony is quite clear. Entering an occupied dwelling for the express purpose of stealing is called burglary. However, if you shoot the unarmed burglar in the back, you will have plenty of splainin to do. In Minnesota It is most likely you will be charged with a crime, and most likely sued by the criminal or his estate.

Shooting him front center Mass within 21 feet, while he is in possession of a large screw driver, or other weapon most likely will be justified.

IMO Castle doctrine probably means being able to shoot a burglar period. He does not have to be attacking you. I personally have a problem with that. If a burglar is on his way out the door with my stuff, do I have a right to end his life? My stuff can be replaced.

 

[Unfettered Might]

"IMO Castle doctrine probably means being able to shoot a burglar period. He does not have to be attacking you. I personally have a problem with that. If a burglar is on his way out the door with my stuff, do I have a right to end his life? My stuff can be replaced.

The act of shooting is deadly force regardless of if it hits them or not, ends their life or not. One could shoot a burglar to incapacitate instead of kill.

Kentucky's Castle Doctrine
503.080 Protection of property.
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:
(a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or
(b) Theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that the person against whom such force is used is:
(a) Attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or
(c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building in his possession.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
Effective: July 12, 2006
History: Amended 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 5, effective July 12, 2006. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 33, effective January 1, 1975.

The arson section is interesting because although one can only use physical force against someone for theft or burglary outside of the dwelling that you are currently in, deadly physical force can be employed against someone trying to burn your property. Again, using deadly force does not mean you have to take their life, only incapacitate.

It should also be noted that in Kentucky, if physical or deadly physical force is employed under the reasons allowed by law for defense of self, defense of others, defense of property and prevention of a suicide, no criminal or civil case can be brought against you. Articulable belief on the part of the person employing physical or deadly physical force is all that is required, not what the actual facts were.

In other words, if your a criminal, you had better steer clear of Kentucky or your safety is in great peril.

 

[theicemanmpls]

"The act of shooting is deadly force regardless of if it hits them or not, ends their life or not. One could shoot a burglar to incapacitate instead of kill."

My primary conceal carry is a .44 special with JHP's. My home defensive is a 12Ga pump with 00 buck.
Wounding, may not be an option.

I just want to stop a threat quickly.

I do see your point. Protecting your property. However, at what cost? If someone is trying to boost a car from a driveway, give them the death penalty?
If one lives in a castle doctrine state;
Should one should have a .38 loaded with squibs or, less then lethal force for "wounding" and or discouragement?
Any opinions?

 

[Unfettered Might]

"The act of shooting is deadly force regardless of if it hits them or not, ends their life or not. One could shoot a burglar to incapacitate instead of kill."

My primary conceal carry is a .44 special with JHP's. My home defensive is a 12Ga pump with 00 buck.
Wounding, may not be an option.

I just want to stop a threat quickly.

I do see your point. Protecting your property. However, at what cost? If someone is trying to boost a car from a driveway, give them the death penalty?
If one lives in a castle doctrine state;
Should one should have a .38 loaded with squibs or, less then lethal force for "wounding" and or discouragement?
Any opinions?

Well mine's a 9mm with JHPs too, I'm just stating the facts, not my personal opinion. I'm going to shoot to stop the threat, which unfortunately is probably going to end their life.

Actually I wasn't trying to make a point about taking a life to save property, theft outside my home is one thing, actually coming into it is a death sentence, I don't care what their intentions are. I would attempt physical force outside of my dwelling because I can and without fear of reprisal, it's that much sweeter. Now if they pulled a knife or club or were substantially larger than I am, the guns coming out to detain. Case law shows that our courts take size, ability, number of, if your elderly, etc into consideration not only for the Lesser of Two Evils defense but also Justifiable Homicide.

It's hard to use any caliber as only a means to incapacitate, best to enjoy your castle doctrine and not worry about such self endangering moral hangups.

 

[marionandjohn]

I didnt have time to read all the posts but in a few that I read I think there are a few laws trying to be combined into one. In TN and GA we have a castle doctrine, a stand your ground law, and a preemption law. Basicly castle doctrine means you have the right to protect your castle (dwelling) in GA it extends to your property, Stand your ground is just that you dont have to retreat prior to use of force (I say if you can do it) but the castle doctrine is for your home and stand your ground is from my understanding for out in public. Now the preemption (i think thats the word) basicly means if some one enters your house or your car (for my state) then it is presumed they are there to do you greatly bodily injury and force is authorized.

As for stopping vs killing the threat I am good with me putting 2-3 rounds CoM from my 40 with the xtp hornadys if they break into my house or threaten my or my family's life if they happen to die from it Im sorry for their family that this person thought it a good idea to test me. As for my personal property (my car) If i catch them I will go into the situtation knowing my pistol is on my hip and Yell or try to force them away from my car if they turn to me to "stop me from stopping them" then I see that as a threat on me and you can refer back up.
My car has been stolen from a hotel parking lot in the middle of OK with out my knowing and quite honstly I am still recovering from all the personal information that they got also. I will tell you from first hand it sucks when you work hard to get what you have, and even if you dont have much whats yours is yours and you earned it, for someone else to come by and decide to just take it from you. I am not saying death penalty for the guy who try to steal my car but I will say I will stop him with a less then leathal force unless he turns to me.