12 Responses to “Senate Bags Out On “Stand Your Ground””

1. Rob Says:
   May 22nd, 2011 at 9:27 pm

   With all due respect Mitch, the time to be polite is over. We need to be firm, and upfront that if the bill is not heard, we will hold every member of leadership responsible.

   It’s a bi-partisan bill, with bi-partisan support. Civil rights is not a partisan issue.

   We don’t have to be rude, but we need to put the pressure on. No vote, is the same things as a “no” vote.

2. Dog Gone Says:
   May 23rd, 2011 at 2:29 am

   And yet, the right claims to be pro-law enforcement, and law enforcement overwhelmingly came out against this. I agree with law enforcement.

   There have been absolutely ZERO instances of anyone needing this legislation; NO CASES WHATSOEVER of anyone facing prosecution for shooting someone who was threatening anywhere in MN.

   What we have works. This legislation was badly drafted and crafted, and creates tremendous possibility for abuse in the guise of self-defense.

   It is more and bigger government to enact legislation that is unnecessary. This makes a mockery of right wing claims to seeking smaller and less intrusive government by promoting additional laws where no need for them exists.

   You know – just like your voter fraud laws that make a hash of voting without any demonstrable cases of anything other than miniscule instances of accidental voter fraud. Kind of like this case of apparent REPUBLICAN voter fraud by the aide to the legislator who drafter the voter ID legislation in WI:
   http://penigma.blogspot.com/2011/05/possible-wi-voter-fraud-by-gop-aide-to.html

   Slightly off topic, but I mention it here because I mention you by name Mitch, along with your Mitchketeers.

3. Rob Says:
   May 23rd, 2011 at 5:20 am

   And yet, the right claims to be pro-law enforcement, and law enforcement overwhelmingly came out against this. I agree with law enforcement.

   This is false… Metro Bureaucrats, and the Dem-leaning associations opposed the bill, just like they have with any bill that involves civilian self defense. (See Permit to Carry, Tasers, batons, etc.) The Police associations themselves admitted that they are divided.

   There have been absolutely ZERO instances of anyone needing this legislation; NO CASES WHATSOEVER of anyone facing prosecution for shooting someone who was threatening anywhere in MN.

   Also not true.. it is true that no one has been CONVICTED, but plenty of people have faced prosecution, been arrested, had charges dropped, or plead out on misdemeanor charges. How long should you have to sit in jail before someone recognizes that you were never supposed top be there in the first place? (Take a look at Erik Pakiseer’s testimony in the House Public Safety committee hearing)
   This bill codifies existing jury rules, and case law, and requires the LEO have probable cause that a crime was committed before they can arbitrarily arrest.

   What we have works.

   Sure, it works, unless you have to use your gun in self defense… then you pray that you are in the right county, with the right cops responding, with the right county attorney, and the right judge. That’s a lot of variables… Me, I’d rather have the standards clearly in the law.

   This legislation was badly drafted and crafted, and creates tremendous possibility for abuse in the guise of self-defense.

   Hasn’t been true in the 20 other states that have it… no reason to think the sky will fall here.

   It is more and bigger government to enact legislation that is unnecessary. This makes a mockery of right wing claims to seeking smaller and less intrusive government by promoting additional laws where no need for them exists.

   This bill limits what government can do when you defend yourself. It’s sad that you think protecting people’s rights equals bigger government… it should be one of the few sole functions of government.

4. Rob Says:
   May 23rd, 2011 at 5:21 am

   MN Police support for stand your ground….

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea_v-lWWbkc

5. Mitch Berg Says:
   May 23rd, 2011 at 6:39 am

   DG,

   Rob – who knows this issue every bit as well as I do, probably better – pretty well flensed your comment.

   But I don’t mind piling on.

   And yet, the right claims to be pro-law enforcement, and law enforcement overwhelmingly came out against this. I agree with law enforcement.

   You’re operating from a chanting point here. Metro police chiefs serve at the pleasure of their mayors, who are DFLers. They are not at liberty to differ from the DFL party line. Ditto the Police Union.

   I know not a few metro cops – actual street cops, not politicians in uniform – who disagree with their administration on this issue.,

   There have been absolutely ZERO instances of anyone needing this legislation; NO CASES WHATSOEVER of anyone facing prosecution for shooting someone who was threatening anywhere in MN.

   Above and beyond what Rob said – so what? It’s happened in other states. Why shouldn’t we learn from others’ mistakes?

   What we have works. This legislation was badly drafted and crafted, and creates tremendous possibility for abuse in the guise of self-defense.

   And that, DG, is a pure chanting point.

   It’s been pointed out that you’re not big on defending your claims – but if you’d be so kind, please get specific.

6. bosshoss429 Says:
   May 23rd, 2011 at 6:39 am

   Doggy;

   Every time that I think you have posted to dumbest thing ever, you post again!

   Let’s hope that your home isn’t invaded in the middle of the night by some junkie needing a fix and IF you are coherent enough to call 9-1-1 the second that you realizewhat’s going on, then have to rely on the police to get there before you or one of your loved ones are either hurt or killed.

   As someone that speaks from experience and benefitted from a similar bill being in force in TX, I can tell you that you should shut up while you’re behind!

7. Kermit Says:
   May 23rd, 2011 at 8:31 am

   And please drop the “Mitchketeers” slur, Dog. That was angryclown’s schtick, and he could pull it off because he never expected anyone to take him seriously. From you it’s just more ugly, liberal hate speech.

8. LearnedFoot Says:
   May 23rd, 2011 at 9:39 am

   “accidental…fraud”

   …is an oxymoron.

   You, DG, are just a moron.

9. bosshoss429 Says:
   May 23rd, 2011 at 10:36 am

   “What we have works. This legislation was badly drafted and crafted, and creates tremendous possibility for abuse in the guise of self-defense.”

   Yes, Doggy. Since we know how “morally correct and tolerant that 99% of you libturds are, it would most likely be one of you that would be the abuser.

10. joelr Says:
    May 23rd, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    There have been absolutely ZERO instances of anyone needing this legislation; NO CASES WHATSOEVER of anyone facing prosecution for shooting someone who was threatening anywhere in MN.

    That, of course, turns out not to be the case. The Treptow and McCuiston cases leap to mind. McCuiston, in particular — not only did he (no ifs, ands, or buts) “face prosecution”, but he was prosecuted, and (originally) convicted. The case turned on “defense of dwelling” — McCuiston shot Fontaine as Fontaine was breaking in his front door. (The judge refused to give a “defense of dwelling” instruction, arguing, in effect, that because Fontaine was on the porch as he was trying to break in the front door, it wasn’t necessary. The Court of Appeals disagreed, and sent the case back for retrial, which — after McCuiston had spent all that time in prison — didn’t happen.)

    From the Appeals Court decision (and, again, emphasis added):

    While standing in his porch doorway on a November evening, McCuiston shot a neighbor in the head at close range with a pistol grip shotgun. Earlier that evening, the victim’s girlfriend telephoned the police because the victim was drunk, angry about money owed them by McCuiston, and talking about starting a fight with “this drug house across the street.” McCuiston lived with his five-year-old son in the upstairs part of a triplex across the alley from the victim. There was a crack house on McCuiston’s block, and McCuiston had purchased the shotgun to protect his son from crime in the neighborhood.

    McCuiston claimed he shot the victim in self-defense. He was out walking with his son when the victim verbally accosted them, yelling racial epithets and threatening to chase McCuiston out of the neighborhood. McCuiston is a five foot, six inch tall, 126-pound African American; the victim was a six foot, one inch tall, 178-pound Caucasian. McCuiston gave his son the house keys and told him to run home. McCuiston continued to walk home with the victim yelling at him.

    At his house, McCuiston climbed the stairs to the porch, entered, and locked the porch screen door. He was unable to lock the storm door because his son had the keys. McCuiston went upstairs to make certain his son was safe. When he heard someone pulling and kicking on the downstairs screen door, he grabbed his shotgun, walked downstairs, and called to his neighbor to telephone the police. McCuiston did not have a telephone at his residence.

    On the porch, the shouting continued. The victim was yelling that he was not afraid of McCuiston; McCuiston was yelling for someone to call the police. McCuiston said he shot the victim as the victim made a gesture to enter McCuiston’s house. The victim’s outer jacket was found in McCuiston’s front lawn.

    A passerby witnessed the confrontation and testified at trial that (a) McCuiston was standing inside his doorway, holding the screen door open, and hollering for someone to call the police; (b) the victim approached McCuiston, touched McCuiston’s shoulder, and retreated; (c) McCuiston raised his shotgun, but did not fire, and shouted for someone to call the police; (d) the victim continued to yell and gesture at McCuiston; and (e) as the victim again moved towards McCuiston in the doorway, McCuiston fired his shotgun

    And the court dealt with some of the objections that were raised by the opponents of reform during the last legislative session:

    The state strenuously argues that the “defense of dwelling” language is too broad and would allow a homeowner to use deadly force to prevent the commission of insurance fraud within the dwelling. As to the state’s hypothetical, we disagree. Minn. Stat. ? 609.065 must be read together with Minn. Stat. ? 609.06, which defines when “reasonable force” may be used. See Minn. Stat. ? 609.065 (taking of a life not authorized under section 609.06, except in defined circumstances); Minn. Stat. Ann. ? 609.065, cmt. (section 609.065 “operates as a limitation on” section 609.06). See generally State v. McKown, 475 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Minn. 1991) (statutes which are in pari materia should be construed together), cert. denied U.S. (1992). The conditions listed in Minn. Stat. ? 609.06 that justify the use of (non-deadly) force include resisting an offense against the person and resisting a trespass. Minn. Stat. ? 609.06(3), (4) (1992). They do not include prevention of a crime of fraud, or other non-physical offense. Because no force would be authorized under Minn. Stat. ? 609.06 to resist insurance fraud, deadly force would not be authorized under Minn. Stat. ? 609.065 to resist the same offense.

    Under the present law, if McCuiston had shot Fontaine while Fontaine was just a few feet further out, the conviction would have stood.

11. Kermit Says:
    May 23rd, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    That, of course, turns out not to be the case.
    Because Dog Gone never really FACT CHECKS the crap she posts. She just parrots DFL chanting points and then runs away like a little girl.
    Mitch should seriously consider curbing this dog.

12. joelr Says:
    May 23rd, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    To be fair, it’s not quite accurate to say that they’re DFL chanting points; they’re anti-self-defense/anti-gun chanting points. We wouldn’t have had carry reform passed in 2003 and/or repassed in 2005 without the votes of several (more in 2005 than 2003) non-Metrocrat DFLers (in the Senate, although there were House DFLers voting for it, too), and while I’m not going to repeat myself, here and now, about the other parts of SF 1357 (my face is already blue enough at the moment), it’s vanishingly unlikely that any sort of reform will pass, in my lifetime, without some level of whole-hearted bipartisan support. (Can anyone remember when both houses of the lege and the governor’s office were in Republican hands? It certainly hasn’t been the case in forty years, at least.)

    This particular chanting point, btw, seems to have emanated from Heather Martens, of the lately-rebranded Citizens for a “Safer” Minnesota, who made just that claim at (at least) two of the hearings this year.

    And, in perhaps excessive fairness to DG: there’s no governmental body or organization charged with (or effectively keeping) records of incidents of self-defense, with or without firearms. As Gary Kleck’s studies (plural) show pretty clearly, that’s an impossible task: most DGUs go entirely unreported, and those that do get reported are reported anecdotally — see the NRA’s Armed Citizens column, or Clayton Cramer’s self-defense blog. The authorities are not even charged with determining if a reported incident is self-defense (which would require huge resources, anyway), but with determining if it should be referred for possible prosecution. The incident of the 60-year-old guy who engaged in what clearly was a self-defense shooting in Uptown a couple of weeks ago won’t be reported in any governmental records as having been in a DGU; at best (which is what it looks like) he’ll simply not have been charged, and if and when the Stand Your Ground bill comes up again, it will only, at most, be mentioned anecdotally — and even if Heather does mention it the next time she testifies (unlikely), she’ll simply argue that it shows that the system is “working”, as that guy, in that situation, (likely) won’t be prosecuted.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.