Shot in the Dark

A State Of Forced Cowardice

So the Minnesota Supreme Court just ruled that a criminals life is more valuable than yours.

No, literally: its A22-0432 State of Minnesota v. Earley Romero Blevins.

And it says that, whereas in Minnesota until today you had to make a reasonable effort to retreat before using lethal force in self-defense (outside your home), now you must retreat before even attempting to present a firearm.

In other words, you have to try to run away BEFORE you can draw your firearm to defend your, and your family’s, lives. 

That means if someone is trying to kill you, you have to give them a couple of seconds of trying to get away before you can even start to see to your own protection.

And that’s if you meet all the other criteria of self-defense; showing the threat to your life is reasonable and immediate, that you were not the aggressor, and that you only use the force to end the threat.

Now, you can do a completely correct self-defense shooting, and still go to prison because some district attorney thinks you should’ve tried harder, against a subjective standard that nobody’s figured out yet, to run away BEFORE you drew a firearm (or picked up any other weapon). 

Put succinctly, it says the life of a criminal is worth more than the life of their victim.
This is completely backwards.

The voters of this state should be ashamed.

Posted

in

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

9 responses to “A State Of Forced Cowardice”

  1. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    Ashamed? They got exactly what they voted for. And they will vote even harder next time. The only message I keep hearing, is if you do not like what you voted for, leave to make room for more likeminded sheeople.

  2. SmithStCrx Avatar
    SmithStCrx

    As I’ve said elsewhere, at least the Justice acknowledged in the first sentence that the Duty to Retreat is a creation of the Courts and not of statute. That will come into play if a future legislature and governor fix the law. It could also be useful in getting SCOTUS involved at some point.
    Now I’m going to go and see why Thissen ended up in the Dissent because I don’t expect much out of him.

  3. SmithStCrx Avatar
    SmithStCrx

    THISSEN, Justice (dissenting).
    The court holds that a person under attack must always find and exercise a
    reasonable opportunity to retreat before threatening force with certain weapons (but
    apparently not others) to deter the attacker. Not only is the court’s decision divorced from
    the statutory text and unprecedented in the United States; it also flies in the face of human
    nature.
    ——-
    I’m pleasantly surprised by Thissen here.

  4. bosshoss429 Avatar
    bosshoss429

    Smith;

    He’s always been a radical leftist, so I’m surprised, too.

  5. In The Mailbox: 08.01.24 : The Other McCain

    […] Media For Gaslighting Americans BY Claiming VP Harris Was Never Border Czar Shot In The Dark: A State of Forced Cowardice, Tea Leaves, and Kackalot STUMP: Taking The Long View – Over A Decade of STUMP Watching […]

  6. jdm Avatar
    jdm

    So, is this something that could be addressed by the US Supreme Court?

    Or is dying in a home invasion with all guns safely and securely locked up going to be feature of living in MN?

  7. MacArthur Wheeler Avatar
    MacArthur Wheeler

    this is the equivalent of an engraved invitation to every member of the criminal classes nationwide. The Court is openly inviting the Cartels to establish themselves in what will be combination free fire zone and sanctuary.

    If you Minnesotans wait real hard someday a magical Republican trifecta will pass a Stand Your Ground Law until then…

  8. jdm Avatar
    jdm

    Another question. I know that this is a bad decision, but is it actually limited in scope? That comment about how Blevin’s claim is disproved smells like a limiting factor. That seems important.

    There’s a some smart lawyers hereabouts who might be able to expound on this, in part because I’m too stupid the understand the judicial comments and the link given goes nowhere.

  9. bobby b Avatar
    bobby b

    I think it will be less trouble than it appears.

    The facts of this case – a guy pulling a machete and then hanging around for quite a while around his threatener – don’t warrant the announced new rule. The Court should have found a way to handle this one case without announcing a new rule.

    “Brandishing” – pulling a weapon to counter a threat – has always been a black hole. Common sense tells us that, if we pull a gun on someone threatening us, they will often back away. Threat handled. But this new caselaw announcement frames it as, “well, if you didn’t actually need to shoot, then there was never any real threat to begin with.”

    The logical result of this new opinion is, if you pull your weapon, YOU MUST IMMEDIATELY SHOOT. Anything less will be an admission that you didn’t really need to pull it. It defies the reality that simply pulling a gun can often stop a very real threat.

    I’m guessing that the Court wasn’t looking to say that.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.