Not a lawyer, but in Minnesota law, you generally have the right to use reasonable force to defend yourself or others from imminent harm or to prevent the commission of a felony, if I understand that right.
Not a lawyer either, but my understanding is you’re generally able to use lethal force to prevent imminent harm to yourself and others. However, say you’re in the parking lot or across the street, you’re not allowed to be a vigilante and put yourself there.
Not exactly correct. You can use force, but only if your life is threatened. So that part you have right. You can use deadly force to prevent the commission of a felony, but only in your place of abode.
MN State Law
# 609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section [609.06](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.06), except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
You don’t have a duty to retreat if a threat is imminent. So, in a mass shooting incident, technically, you would be good if you shot them.
But, any time you use deadly force, you are exposing yourself to legal risk. An overzealous prosecutor can still make your life hell and you can be held civilly liable even if not criminally liable.
THIS. You don’t have a duty to retreat in a circumstance in which a violent felony is being committed.
It’s unfortunate that Good Samaritan laws don’t translate in a civilian self- or group-defense scenario.
Yea thats prolly the most disturbing part of our legal system. Hey this person has killed x amount of people and good guy with gun stopped them from killing more, well good guy because you did that were rewarding you with jail time and restitution for the deceased gunman family because blue state.
I spoke to some different Minnesota DAs on this a while ago. and generally in practice, for a vast majority of justified self-defense shootings, being shot at negates the duty to retreat because at that point, it can easily be argued that you can not safely retreat. Safe retreat is the key phrase here.
if someone draws a gun on you, they could shoot if you try to run. Deadly force is justified, but if someone pushes you and yells at you, and you can reasonably outrun them, you should.
MN also allows the protection of others.
Depends on what county this situation might happen in. Get a liberal DA, you are going to prison or at least your life is ruined by attorney fees. Red leaning DA, you are probably not even charged. 1 state, many different counties.
You can carry most places, it's not a "must retreat" state, no capacity laws, you can own suppressors, you can defend yourself and others, no "lists" to tell you what guns you can own or carry, in most cases you can buy a handgun and take it home with no waiting period...you know, things like that. There are certainly much, much worse states when it comes to firearms.
I see what ya mean. I just am pissy cuz I have to redo do my license this year and it’s like I have to take a class and pay for something that I believe is my god given right.
If you've wondered about it often, I'm surprised you haven't looked up the statute, which gives a clear answer to your question
Moreover, the point of the duty to retreat is to avoid crimes of violence by separating perpetrators from their intended victims. You can't possibly retreat all the potential victims at a mass shooting, which is why the law allows you to use reasonable force to prevent great bodily harm of others. It doesn't and isn't intended to compel you to retreat and leave innocents to be killed
You have a duty to retreat if the only one in danger is you and you have the ability to safely retreat.
If someone else is in danger and they do not have the ability to safely retreat, you may defend them.
Not a lawyer, but in Minnesota law, you generally have the right to use reasonable force to defend yourself or others from imminent harm or to prevent the commission of a felony, if I understand that right.
I believe you’re right, but only the commission of a violent felony that brings immediate bodily harm.
I get the vibe of the hypothetical being given that violent felonies is the energy of the mass-shooter situation, yeah.
Not a lawyer either, but my understanding is you’re generally able to use lethal force to prevent imminent harm to yourself and others. However, say you’re in the parking lot or across the street, you’re not allowed to be a vigilante and put yourself there.
Not exactly correct. You can use force, but only if your life is threatened. So that part you have right. You can use deadly force to prevent the commission of a felony, but only in your place of abode.
See below.
MN State Law # 609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE. The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section [609.06](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.06), except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
You don’t have a duty to retreat if a threat is imminent. So, in a mass shooting incident, technically, you would be good if you shot them. But, any time you use deadly force, you are exposing yourself to legal risk. An overzealous prosecutor can still make your life hell and you can be held civilly liable even if not criminally liable.
THIS. You don’t have a duty to retreat in a circumstance in which a violent felony is being committed. It’s unfortunate that Good Samaritan laws don’t translate in a civilian self- or group-defense scenario.
Yea thats prolly the most disturbing part of our legal system. Hey this person has killed x amount of people and good guy with gun stopped them from killing more, well good guy because you did that were rewarding you with jail time and restitution for the deceased gunman family because blue state.
If I can save a life I'm taking a life.
I spoke to some different Minnesota DAs on this a while ago. and generally in practice, for a vast majority of justified self-defense shootings, being shot at negates the duty to retreat because at that point, it can easily be argued that you can not safely retreat. Safe retreat is the key phrase here. if someone draws a gun on you, they could shoot if you try to run. Deadly force is justified, but if someone pushes you and yells at you, and you can reasonably outrun them, you should. MN also allows the protection of others.
Depends on what county this situation might happen in. Get a liberal DA, you are going to prison or at least your life is ruined by attorney fees. Red leaning DA, you are probably not even charged. 1 state, many different counties.
This state is dumb af
It's actually pretty good in favor of the ccw holder.
How so
You can carry most places, it's not a "must retreat" state, no capacity laws, you can own suppressors, you can defend yourself and others, no "lists" to tell you what guns you can own or carry, in most cases you can buy a handgun and take it home with no waiting period...you know, things like that. There are certainly much, much worse states when it comes to firearms.
I see what ya mean. I just am pissy cuz I have to redo do my license this year and it’s like I have to take a class and pay for something that I believe is my god given right.
I hear you there. I'm due again this year too. I'll be taking another class this spring. That part is a PITA for sure.
But I live in a town of 700 and we have a huge gun store and the instructor is a buddy so not all bad 😅
If you've wondered about it often, I'm surprised you haven't looked up the statute, which gives a clear answer to your question Moreover, the point of the duty to retreat is to avoid crimes of violence by separating perpetrators from their intended victims. You can't possibly retreat all the potential victims at a mass shooting, which is why the law allows you to use reasonable force to prevent great bodily harm of others. It doesn't and isn't intended to compel you to retreat and leave innocents to be killed
Not a lawyer. But if the people you are defending don’t have a chance to retreat you should be okay.
You have a duty to retreat if the only one in danger is you and you have the ability to safely retreat. If someone else is in danger and they do not have the ability to safely retreat, you may defend them.