Minnesota Supreme Court rules person being threatened cannot brandish weapon if ‘reasonably possible to retreat’

Is this a reasonable option?

  • Yes. Ask the killer to give you a beat to consider the options.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No. Defend yourself at all costs. Better to be judged by a jury of 12 than carried by 6.

    Votes: 5 100.0%

  • Total voters
    5

Cellblock2429

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Jul 22, 2016
36,195
16,313
Who is to determine if you have a "reasonable" possibility of retreating? Your life is in danger; you have the ability and will to defend yourself, but you have to take a few moments and think, can I outrun the assailant? My choices are to defend myself and face jail time, or try and flee where I can still die.

Can everyone think that quickly on their feet?

 
Who is to determine if you have a "reasonable" possibility of retreating? Your life is in danger; you have the ability and will to defend yourself, but you have to take a few moments and think, can I outrun the assailant? My choices are to defend myself and face jail time, or try and flee where I can still die.

Can everyone think that quickly on their feet?

This is another reason why i moved to Florida.

when-seconds-count-the-police-are-only-minutes-away-n.jpg
 
Who is to determine if you have a "reasonable" possibility of retreating? Your life is in danger; you have the ability and will to defend yourself, but you have to take a few moments and think, can I outrun the assailant? My choices are to defend myself and face jail time, or try and flee where I can still die.

Can everyone think that quickly on their feet?

Fuck them....
 
Who is to determine if you have a "reasonable" possibility of retreating? Your life is in danger; you have the ability and will to defend yourself, but you have to take a few moments and think, can I outrun the assailant? My choices are to defend myself and face jail time, or try and flee where I can still die.

Can everyone think that quickly on their feet?

In some cases retreat only accelerates your demise
 
Who is to determine if you have a "reasonable" possibility of retreating? Your life is in danger; you have the ability and will to defend yourself, but you have to take a few moments and think, can I outrun the assailant? My choices are to defend myself and face jail time, or try and flee where I can still die.

Can everyone think that quickly on their feet?


Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
 
Who is to determine if you have a "reasonable" possibility of retreating? Your life is in danger; you have the ability and will to defend yourself, but you have to take a few moments and think, can I outrun the assailant? My choices are to defend myself and face jail time, or try and flee where I can still die.

Can everyone think that quickly on their feet?

Your rights are slowly being taken over by one world government leftists.... a bit at a time, a state at a time....a ruling at a time by a left leaning court..... drip....drip.....drip....

It all started in California and like a slow growing cancer it's infecting a lot of other states.
 
Again I say, I am glad I live in a state with a wide interpretation of "castle doctrine"
In Indiana you can use deadly force even if all a person is doing is attempting to break in your home, vehicle or any curtilage on your property.
And that's the way it should be. When you choose crime as a hobby, or career path -- you take your chances.
 
Who is to determine if you have a "reasonable" possibility of retreating? Your life is in danger; you have the ability and will to defend yourself, but you have to take a few moments and think, can I outrun the assailant? My choices are to defend myself and face jail time, or try and flee where I can still die.

Can everyone think that quickly on their feet?

The Court is full of idiots who are a Kangaroo court for Criminals.

You come at me with a weapon you better know how to use it.
 
It's not always clear if someone can retreat and it’s very subjective. What if I’m with someone that can’t retreat like a young child or a senior citizen. What if as someone already pointed out I can’t outrun the attacker?

If a total stranger attacks me I have to assume the worst. I don’t know this person. They could be bluffing or they could kill me if I don’t comply.

Now, playing devil’s advocate I could see how this would apply. I’m in my car and someone walks up to the window and tells me to get out of the car. I can easily just drive off. But I get out of the car knowing I’m carrying and I shoot the guy. If you all recall the George Zimmerman case I always thought he was at least guilty of involuntary manslaughter. He has a gun and he’s following Martin through a dark neighborhood. The police told him not the follow. Zimmerman’s life is in no danger but he creates a confrontation while carrying.

In any event it sounds like a bad law. If I’m attacked I can’t decide in that moment my escape options. If I can defend myself I must and I have to assume the worst.
 
Who is to determine if you have a "reasonable" possibility of retreating? Your life is in danger; you have the ability and will to defend yourself, but you have to take a few moments and think, can I outrun the assailant? My choices are to defend myself and face jail time, or try and flee where I can still die.

Can everyone think that quickly on their feet?

Like when this kid reasonably retreated and the dude chased him?

 
MN does not have a stand your ground law; the law specifies a duty to retreat when not inside the home.
Stupid law.
 
So if someone else brandishes a weapon that's fine, but if I immediately brandish one in response to theirs in order to protect myself or my wife I am supposed to decide if I can flee? I will decide the best course of action to a threat, if my brain says attack I will attack if my brain says flee because it senses too great of a threat and retreat is a viable option then I will flee


Our society needs to learn it's the criminals, dopeheads and crazy people that don't belong in society. If we got rid of them then average citizens wouldn't be in situations where they need to defend themselves.

Everytime a criminal hurts someone it's the criminals fault.

Everytime a criminal gets hurt it's the criminals fault.
 
So if someone else brandishes a weapon that's fine, but if I immediately brandish one in response to theirs in order to protect myself or my wife I am supposed to decide if I can flee? I will decide the best course of action to a threat, if my brain says attack I will attack if my brain says flee because it senses too great of a threat and retreat is a viable option then I will flee


Our society needs to learn it's the criminals, dopeheads and crazy people that don't belong in society. If we got rid of them then average citizens wouldn't be in situations where they need to defend themselves.

Everytime a criminal hurts someone it's the criminals fault.

Everytime a criminal gets hurt it's the criminals fault.

The person instigating the criminal acts shouldn't be the one controlling the allowed response by the potential victim.
 

Forum List

Back
Top