In a 4-2 split decision, the court wrote that longstanding Minnesota law says that there is a duty to retreat when reasonably possible ...

[excalibur]

This is what a stinking hole Minnesota has become. Just insanity at work. Of course, these are crazed leftoid justices at work.

They, naturally, get personal protection. You? Ha!

In a 4-2 split decision, the court wrote that longstanding Minnesota law says that there is a duty to retreat when reasonably possible before using deadly force, even when facing bodily harm.​

​

​

In a 4-2 split decision, the court wrote that longstanding Minnesota law says that there is a duty to retreat when reasonably possible before using deadly force, even when facing bodily harm.​

But according to Rob Doar, the vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, the ruling means anyone who uses a deadly weapon in self-defense must look for a reasonable way to retreat before even showing a weapon, or they can be charged with a crime.​

​

"Minnesota is one of the states that does have a duty to retreat. But now with this decision, we are literally the only state in the country that requires you to retreat before you even present a force option," said Doar.​

In a dissenting opinion, one of the justices wrote not only is the court's decision unprecedented in the United States; it also flies in the face of human nature.​

That's a view Doar agrees with, saying in the moment, most people don't have time to look for a way to retreat before grabbing or at least showing their weapon to defend themselves.​

"I don't think that this is a practical way that a self-defense encounter would unfold. If you're confronted with a threat, you're going to want to mitigate that threat as soon as possible," said Doar.​

​

Doar says the new precedent could affect anyone with a permit to carry in Minnesota and change the way permit-to-carry trainers teach about the state's self-defense laws.​

MN Supreme Court duty to retreat ruling

When the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld two second-degree assault with a deadly weapon convictions against a man with a machete who was threatened by a man with a knife at a Minneapolis light rail station, the state's highest court also set a new precedent involving Minnesota's self-defense laws.

www.fox9.com

​

 

[j-mac]

This is what a stinking hole Minnesota has become. Just insanity at work. Of course, these are crazed leftoid justices at work.

They, naturally, get personal protection. You? Ha!

[color="darkred]
In a 4-2 split decision, the court wrote that longstanding Minnesota law says that there is a duty to retreat when reasonably possible before using deadly force, even when facing bodily harm.[/color][/b][/center]


[indent][b]
In a 4-2 split decision, the court wrote that longstanding Minnesota law says that there is a duty to retreat when reasonably possible before using deadly force, even when facing bodily harm.

But according to Rob Doar, the vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, the ruling means anyone who uses a deadly weapon in self-defense must look for a reasonable way to retreat before even showing a weapon, or they can be charged with a crime.

"Minnesota is one of the states that does have a duty to retreat. But now with this decision, we are literally the only state in the country that requires you to retreat before you even present a force option," said Doar.

In a dissenting opinion, one of the justices wrote not only is the court's decision unprecedented in the United States; it also flies in the face of human nature.

That's a view Doar agrees with, saying in the moment, most people don't have time to look for a way to retreat before grabbing or at least showing their weapon to defend themselves.

"I don't think that this is a practical way that a self-defense encounter would unfold. If you're confronted with a threat, you're going to want to mitigate that threat as soon as possible," said Doar.

Doar says the new precedent could affect anyone with a permit to carry in Minnesota and change the way permit-to-carry trainers teach about the state's self-defense laws.[/b][/indent]


[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.fox9.com/news/mn-supreme-court-duty-retreat-ruling[/URL]​

The agenda of the progressive left is to make criminals job easier…

 

[excalibur]

The agenda of the progressive left is to make criminals job easier…

Thus importing them by the millions.

 

[Blaster]

Too many liberal judges.

 

[rampart]

The agenda of the progressive left is to make criminals job easier…

the agenda of the maga right is to make the criminals "immune"

 

[Vastator]

This is what a stinking hole Minnesota has become. Just insanity at work. Of course, these are crazed leftoid justices at work.

They, naturally, get personal protection. You? Ha!

In a 4-2 split decision, the court wrote that longstanding Minnesota law says that there is a duty to retreat when reasonably possible before using deadly force, even when facing bodily harm.​

​

​

In a 4-2 split decision, the court wrote that longstanding Minnesota law says that there is a duty to retreat when reasonably possible before using deadly force, even when facing bodily harm.​

But according to Rob Doar, the vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, the ruling means anyone who uses a deadly weapon in self-defense must look for a reasonable way to retreat before even showing a weapon, or they can be charged with a crime.​

​

"Minnesota is one of the states that does have a duty to retreat. But now with this decision, we are literally the only state in the country that requires you to retreat before you even present a force option," said Doar.​

In a dissenting opinion, one of the justices wrote not only is the court's decision unprecedented in the United States; it also flies in the face of human nature.​

That's a view Doar agrees with, saying in the moment, most people don't have time to look for a way to retreat before grabbing or at least showing their weapon to defend themselves.​

"I don't think that this is a practical way that a self-defense encounter would unfold. If you're confronted with a threat, you're going to want to mitigate that threat as soon as possible," said Doar.​

​

Doar says the new precedent could affect anyone with a permit to carry in Minnesota and change the way permit-to-carry trainers teach about the state's self-defense laws.​

MN Supreme Court duty to retreat ruling

When the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld two second-degree assault with a deadly weapon convictions against a man with a machete who was threatened by a man with a knife at a Minneapolis light rail station, the state's highest court also set a new precedent involving Minnesota's self-defense laws.

www.fox9.com

​

Cool. Now apply it to police...

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No, the right to defend with deadly force is not absolute.

 

[The Irish Ram]

This is what a stinking hole Minnesota has become. Just insanity at work. Of course, these are crazed leftoid justices at work.

They, naturally, get personal protection. You? Ha!

In a 4-2 split decision, the court wrote that longstanding Minnesota law says that there is a duty to retreat when reasonably possible before using deadly force, even when facing bodily harm.​

​

​

In a 4-2 split decision, the court wrote that longstanding Minnesota law says that there is a duty to retreat when reasonably possible before using deadly force, even when facing bodily harm.​

But according to Rob Doar, the vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, the ruling means anyone who uses a deadly weapon in self-defense must look for a reasonable way to retreat before even showing a weapon, or they can be charged with a crime.​

​

"Minnesota is one of the states that does have a duty to retreat. But now with this decision, we are literally the only state in the country that requires you to retreat before you even present a force option," said Doar.​

In a dissenting opinion, one of the justices wrote not only is the court's decision unprecedented in the United States; it also flies in the face of human nature.​

That's a view Doar agrees with, saying in the moment, most people don't have time to look for a way to retreat before grabbing or at least showing their weapon to defend themselves.​

"I don't think that this is a practical way that a self-defense encounter would unfold. If you're confronted with a threat, you're going to want to mitigate that threat as soon as possible," said Doar.​

​

Doar says the new precedent could affect anyone with a permit to carry in Minnesota and change the way permit-to-carry trainers teach about the state's self-defense laws.​

MN Supreme Court duty to retreat ruling

When the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld two second-degree assault with a deadly weapon convictions against a man with a machete who was threatened by a man with a knife at a Minneapolis light rail station, the state's highest court also set a new precedent involving Minnesota's self-defense laws.

www.fox9.com

​

Take it to the Supreme Court. We have the right to protect ourselves.
In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".

 

[pknopp]

This was covered once. The reason for the ruling was because the other person had already disarmed.