Someone Else’s Shoes
By Mitch Berg
Joe Doakes, formerly of Como Park, emails:
The Minnesota Court of Appeals issued an opinion which clarifies the duty to retreat in defense-of-others cases.
Let’s imagine a situation where Lilly is the Victim lying on the ground, Trevon is the Assailant kneeling astride Lilly beating her with a baseball bat, and Tom is the Rescuer, a lawfully armed citizen who sees the situation. Tom determines that Lilly is likely to suffer great bodily harm or death if Tom does not intervene using lethal force to stop Trevon’s attack. If Tom shoots Trevon, can Tom claim he acted in self-defense? In the past, we often heard that the Rescuer steps into the Victim’s shoes. If the Victim could use self-defense, the Rescuer could, too. But there was no case which clearly said so.
We know that in defense-of-self cases (if Trevon was attacking Tom), Tom must retreat if he can do so safely, before using lethal force. That’s not the situation here.
The State was arguing that in defense-of-others cases, Tom as Rescuer must also retreat if he can do so safely, leaving Lilly, the Victim, to die. It’s more important to prevent a shooting than to save a life.
The Court of Appeals decided that was wrong. The duty to retreat is the duty of the VICTIM to retreat, not the duty of the RESCUER.
If Lilly could not safely retreat, then Tom might be justified in shooting Trevon to stop the deadly attack.
Of course, Tom is taking a risk in doing so. The other rules of self-defense still apply. Lilly may have initiated the confrontation, Trevon may be using a bat to stop Lilly from stabbing him with a knife again, Tom is still stuck in Lilly’s shoes for those elements of the defense. But at least the leave-her-to-die argument has been laid to rest.
So that’s good news.
Joe Doakes, no longer in Como Park
It’s about time.
October 20th, 2023 at 6:11 am
In reading the court decision, I learned that the state of Minnesota tried and convicted a guy who shot an invader in his house, because he could have retreated out the back door…leaving his family with the invader.
The MN Supreme court reversed the conviction, but not until after the defendant had spent untold amounts of money defending himself, and an undisclosed amount of time in prison.
That experience did not dissuade MN from doing the same crap again in this case.
Moral of the story: In Minnesota, if attacked, you must run or die. If you don’t like them apples, you should move to a civilized state.
October 20th, 2023 at 7:00 am
The decision is lipstick on a pig. I thought Minnesota was at least a castle doctrine state. Am I mistaken?
October 20th, 2023 at 7:27 am
no MN is not a castle doctrine state, if possible you must retreat,
October 20th, 2023 at 8:57 am
No, as I noted, according to the previous case the court cited in this case, the MN Supreme court has ruled you do not have a duty to retreat from your own house.
That said, I’m sure you’d have to prove the intruder was armed, or otherwise posed an imminent threat, as opposed to my state where simply being in my house uninvited is all the reason I need.
October 20th, 2023 at 9:25 am
I feared for my life in my house so I shot him. END OF STORY DAMMIT!
October 20th, 2023 at 9:32 am
Works in South Carolina, dude. In fact, you don’t have to explain anything beyond “I have no idea who that mfer is or why he was in my house”.