Gun question

by TheNextPrez2012 Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:22 pm

Let's say you have a gun with you at all times.
You come home from some errands or whatever and find a criminal stealing your grandmother's sewing machine. You pull out your gun and shoot the guy...
Now even though he never made any advances towards you, can you still claim self-defense for the shooting?

Let's add even more:
You are a responsible person with no record of criminal activity of any kind...

by **TexasBlue** Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:36 pm

It varies from state to state. There's where you need to look.

In Minnesota,

Chapter 753, Article 1, Statute 609.065 of the Minnesota statutes states the terms of Minnesota's self-defense laws. It is included in the same section as other laws regarding crime and punishment in Minnesota. The law states: "The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized [...] 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."

In this case, I am legally within my bounds to use deadly force when someone stealing from my residence.

Texas (my old state) is the same and even clarifies much more than the Minnesota statute does.

http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm

by kronos Wed Jan 26, 2011 11:58 am

TexasBlue wrote:or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode."[/b]

Any felony at all? That seems awfully permissive.

Say I come home to find my son hanging out with a friend whom, on closer inspection, I observe to be selling drugs to my son. Can I blow friend's brains out?

Say my cousin has been crashing on my couch lately while he looks for a job, which is made difficult by the fact that he can't drive because his license was suspended. He has an interview coming up, it's pretty far away, and he's frustrated that he can't drive. He says screw it--just this once, I'm driving. I'll be safe and smart; noone will catch me. I try to talk him out of it (though, it doesn't seem like i even have to do this to justify what's coming next) but it's not working. So, I can kill him now, right? I mean, he's about to drive on a suspended license; that's all I need.

Say I discover documents in my wife's desk that indicate that she is committing tax fraud--has been for a number of years, and is almost certainly doing so still. She hasn't mailed her returns yet. Once they are mailed, the fraud has been committed. Can I kill her? It'd certainly prevent her from committing a felony. The law doesn't say I have to try other remedies before resorting to deadly force.

Say (after all these other things happen) I catch my 16-year-old daughter engaged in sexual congress with her 18-year-old boyfriend. This is statutory rape in Minnesota. Can I put a bullet in him?

I am half-serious here. I know these scenarios are a bit ridiculous, but when I read that law, my first instinct was to dream up legal murder scenarios. (Weird, that's the second time I've done that in this forum in less than a week).

by kronos Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:17 pm

And then I looked at your other thread, "Almost Everything Is A Crime In America Now." It's amazing how many justifications there are to kill someone. Don't get caught reading your wife's email!

by **TexasBlue** Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:21 pm

kronos wrote:
TexasBlue wrote:or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode."[/b]

Any felony at all? That seems awfully permissive.

I am half-serious here. I know these scenarios are a bit ridiculous, but when I read that law, my first instinct was to dream up legal murder scenarios. (Weird, that's the second time I've done that in this forum in less than a week).

I think that the preceding statement nullifies the scenarios you stated.

"The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized [...]

Nobody actually intends to take a life. One has to be threatened. But I'm sure a lawyer would be able to hash this out. Where is one when you need them? ROFL

Yeah, we're going to have to send you to jail with Loughner for even thinking shit up like that. Big Grin

by **TexasBlue** Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:23 pm

kronos wrote:And then I looked at your other thread, "Almost Everything Is A Crime In America Now." It's amazing how many justifications there are to kill someone. Don't get caught reading your wife's email!

Yeah, when I read that article (before posting it), I couldn't believe the laws that have been created here in various states. Then there's the old saying ""ignorance of the law is no excuse." All fine and dandy until you have 13,000 laws you have to study up on. Hysterical

by kronos Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:52 pm

TexasBlue wrote:I think that the preceding statement nullifies the scenarios you stated.
"The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized [...]

I don't think it does. Let's look at the entire quote in full again:

Chapter 753, Article 1, Statute 609.065 of the Minnesota statutes states the terms of Minnesota's self-defense laws. It is included in the same section as other laws regarding crime and punishment in Minnesota. The law states: "The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized [...] 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."

So, you can't intentionally take a life unless either of the underlined conditions are met. All the scenarios I mentioned meet the second underlined condition. They all involve prevention of a felony in the life-taker's house. So they should be kosher.

TexasBlue wrote:One has to be threatened.

They don't have to be. That just applies to the first condition. But there are two conditions listed, and you only need to meet one. The second condition does not require you to be threatened. It only requires you to reasonably believe that someone in your house is about to commit a felony. It doesn't say that the felony needs to threaten your safety in any way.

But I'm probably missing something here. Somehow I don't think any of those defenses would fly in court.

by dblboggie Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:02 pm

kronos wrote:
TexasBlue wrote:I think that the preceding statement nullifies the scenarios you stated.
"The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized [...]

I don't think it does. Let's look at the entire quote in full again:

Chapter 753, Article 1, Statute 609.065 of the Minnesota statutes states the terms of Minnesota's self-defense laws. It is included in the same section as other laws regarding crime and punishment in Minnesota. The law states: "The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized [...] 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."

So, you can't intentionally take a life unless either of the underlined conditions are met. All the scenarios I mentioned meet the second underlined condition. They all involve prevention of a felony in the life-taker's house. So they should be kosher.

TexasBlue wrote:One has to be threatened.

They don't have to be. That just applies to the first condition. But there are two conditions listed, and you only need to meet one. The second condition does not require you to be threatened. It only requires you to reasonably believe that someone in your house is about to commit a felony. It doesn't say that the felony needs to threaten your safety in any way.

But I'm probably missing something here. Somehow I don't think any of those defenses would fly in court.

In all your scenarios, the actor was on your premises with the permission of a legal resident of said premises. I think we may be missing a provision of the law that states that the actor must have gained access to your premises illegally - i.e. without the permission of a legal resident.

by **TexasBlue** Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:24 pm

Here's a more detailed explanation. It's in a PDF file though.
http://www.onalert.org/The%20Law%20of%20Self-Defense.pdf

Keep in mind that Minnesota is a liberal state... and has this law.

by kronos Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:33 pm

Here's the law cited in full. The previously omitted part is bolded.

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 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.

So we need to refer to section 609.06. Here 'tis:

609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
Subdivision 1.When authorized.

Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:

(1) when used by a public officer or one assisting a public officer under the public officer's direction:

(a) in effecting a lawful arrest; or

(b) in the execution of legal process; or

(c) in enforcing an order of the court; or

(d) in executing any other duty imposed upon the public officer by law; or

(2) when used by a person not a public officer in arresting another in the cases and in the manner provided by law and delivering the other to an officer competent to receive the other into custody; or

(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or

(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property; or

(5) when used by any person to prevent the escape, or to retake following the escape, of a person lawfully held on a charge or conviction of a crime; or

(6) when used by a parent, guardian, teacher, or other lawful custodian of a child or pupil, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain or correct such child or pupil; or

(7) when used by a school employee or school bus driver, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain a child or pupil, or to prevent bodily harm or death to another; or

(8) when used by a common carrier in expelling a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful requirement for the conduct of passengers and reasonable care is exercised with regard to the passenger's personal safety; or

(9) when used to restrain a person who is mentally ill or mentally defective from self-injury or injury to another or when used by one with authority to do so to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the person's control, conduct, or treatment; or

(10) when used by a public or private institution providing custody or treatment against one lawfully committed to it to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the control, conduct, or treatment of the committed person.
Subd. 2.Deadly force used against peace officers.

Deadly force may not be used against peace officers who have announced their presence and are performing official duties at a location where a person is committing a crime or an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult.

(4) seems to be saying what dbl was getting at. I can use "reasonable force" to resist a trespass on my property; this force can be deadly if I reasonably believe the trespasser is committing a felony. In the scenarios I described, there is no trespass, so I cannot use reasonable force, much less deadly force.

by kronos Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:36 pm

TexasBlue wrote:Here's a more detailed explanation. It's in a PDF file though.
http://www.onalert.org/The%20Law%20of%20Self-Defense.pdf

Keep in mind that Minnesota is a liberal state... and has this law.

That clarifies it even further.

I guess the moral of the story is, make sure you've read the law inside and out if you plan on getting off on a technicality.

by **TexasBlue** Wed Jan 26, 2011 8:39 pm

Correct. I did a search on the law yesterday but didn't find a concise reading of it. When I saw your scenario post, I dug deeper. There' always more to law than what there seems. It's not that the source I got it from originally was misleading. It just didn't have the whole shebang.

by Sponsored content

Gun question

Gun question

Re: Gun question

Re: Gun question

Re: Gun question

Re: Gun question

Re: Gun question

Re: Gun question

Re: Gun question

Re: Gun question

Re: Gun question

Re: Gun question

Re: Gun question

Re: Gun question