So last week, the DFL introduce this amendment to existing state statute on “reasonable force” self-defense in this bill.
And the amendment includes some curious bits of language:
A Kiss Is Just A Kiss
Minnesota law allows the use of “Reasonable” and non-lethal force (that’s another statute altogether) in some circumstances: when you’re:
- A cop doing legal cop things (or helping a cop do cop things, or carrying out a legitimate citizen’s arrest
- Helping someone defend themselves against an assault
- Resisting trespass
- Grabbing a prison escapee
- Restraining a child or student, under some circumstances, if one is a parent, teacher, guardian or lawful custodian
- If you’re a school or employee or bus driver, to protect students
- If you’re a common carrier and need to 86 a troublesome passenger (with reasonable care for the passenger’s safety)
- Restraining someone who’s mentally ill or otherwise developmentally disabled from harming themselves
- If you’re an institution and need to restrain a patient from harming themself or someone else.
So far so good.
But the DFL wants to add an exception to the law:
Subd. 4.
Use of force not authorized; reaction to victim’s sexual orientation.
Force may not be used against another based on the discovery of, knowledge about, or potential disclosure of the victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, including gender identity and expression, including under circumstances in which the victim made an unwanted nonforcible romantic or sexual advance towards the actor, or if the actor and victim dated or had a romantic or sexual relationship.
So if I read this right – lawyers in the house, please sound off – it sounds like someone who takes a non-forcible pass at someone is fair game for a good slap – but not if they are or are “perceived” to be transgender, in which case it’s off limits?
Again – not being lawyer, I’m unclear on this, but is it currently OK to slap someone who makes a pass at you, if they’re “cisgender?” Or merely gay?
And that’s just the beginning.
Liquored Up?
When booze is involved, things get a little weirder, at least to this non-lawyer: Booze is no defense, except as an aspect of crimes whose elements include a particular state of mind:
An act committed while in a state of voluntary intoxication is not less criminal by reason thereof, but when a particular intent or other state
of mind is a necessary element to constitute a particular crime, the fact of intoxication may be taken into consideration in determining such intent or state of mind
Unless that state of mind involves a crime against a transgender person:
It is not a defense to a crime that the defendant acted based on the discovery of, knowledge about, or potential disclosure of the victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, including gender identity and expression, including under circumstances in which the victim made an unwanted nonforcible romantic
or sexual advance towards the defendant, or if the defendant and victim dated or had a romantic or sexual relationship.
So, is there a crime, currently, where the state of mind is an element of the crime, where intoxication can be considered as part of the defendant’s state of mind, that would not be affected by a victim’s perceived gender?
Someone help me out here.
And finally:
If You’re Not A Biologist, Is It Really “Manslaughter?”
Among several other motivations, manslaughter is when one…:
intentionally causes the death of another person in the heat of passion provoked by such words or acts of another as would provoke a person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances, provided that…
That appears to this non-attorney to refer to someone reacting to some form of extreme stressor, like crying child, or…:
(ii) the discovery of, knowledge about, or potential disclosure of the victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, including gender identity and expression, including under circumstances in which the victim made an unwanted nonforcible romantic or sexual advance towards the actor, or if the actor and victim dated or had a romantic or sexual relationship
So – is killing someone in the heat of the moment a lesser grade of manslaughter than killing someone of ambiguous gender?
Is it just me, or is that really weird?
When you wake up in the morning to discover the woman you brought home from the bar last night actually is a transgender male, you can’t claim the revelation justifiably provoked you to beat the dickens out of him – her – it – they – whatever.
Okay, but do you still have to pay the agreed amount? Shouldn’t that revelation be a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing? Or do you still owe full price under the theory that you received the intended result despite the switch in packaging? It’s a conundrum, for sure.
^ Depends, big guy, are you white, male?
Was this amendment named “The Ryan Londregan Was Just the Start Act”?
PS as per you might expect, the Red Star has an editorial today, Editorial counterpoint: Let Moriarty pursue her state trooper case without interference with the teaser Sadly, Democrats have begun parroting MAGA talking points on public safety and policing.
PPS Angie Craig is just like Hitler, I guess.
Based on the wording of Lea Finke’s throw kids under the bus for pedophiles to have sex with them, that got approved by the apparatchiks, nothing surprises me anymore.
They’re trying to protect trans people from some pretty horrific things that happen to them without realizing that trans people tend to be disproportionately involved in sex work, mentally ill, homeless, addicted to drugs, and the like. I don’t know that the violence they suffer is disproportional when you take that into account.
Regarding Moriarty’s failure to abide by Brady v. Maryland and provide exculpatory evidence to the defense, I just have to say that minority defendants have the most to fear if Moriarty’s little game succeeds. If things are as they appear, the whole prosecution team needs to be disbarred.
While the DFL likes to complain about the “epidemic of violence against transgender individuals”™, I’m one of the people that is skeptical. The last I heard about the issue is that the majority of the transgender women that are assaulted or even killed are the victims of their Johns that didn’t like the goods when they opened their evening’s entertainment. I’ll insert the obligatory, “I’m not justifying John’s actions.” right here. I am saying that the “but for” cause of the assault was the illegal and fraudulent prostitution. I’m open to suggestions to solve that problem.