|
|
It is currently Thu Apr 18, 2024 9:14 pm
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Reasonable force goes bad?
Author |
Message |
Andrew Rothman
|
Post subject: Re: Reasonable force goes bad? Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:35 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am Posts: 6767 Location: Twin Cities
|
Minnesota law allows for a continuum of force to be used in self defense.
"Deadly force" -- shooting or stabbing or bludgeoning someone -- is allowed only when there is a legitimate fear of death or GBH, etc., etc.
"Reasonable force" is allowed in self defense in less-than-GBH situations. Pulling a gun may be, under some circumstances, reasonable force (to find out if it applies to your case, you'll have to wait for the jury decision).
I have a real problem with "don't draw unless you're ready to shoot." I understand being mentally prepared for the possibility, but the vast majority of DGUs end with no shots fired. We must be in the mindset that it may be necessary to fire, not that drawing starts an inevitable chain reaction ending in blood.
_________________ * NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremiah
|
Post subject: Re: Reasonable force goes bad? Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:49 am |
|
Raving Moderate |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:46 pm Posts: 1292 Location: Minneapolis
|
Andrew Rothman wrote: I have a real problem with "don't draw unless you're ready to shoot." I understand being mentally prepared for the possibility, but the vast majority of DGUs end with no shots fired. We must be in the mindset that it may be necessary to fire, not that drawing starts an inevitable chain reaction ending in blood. I didn't see it as "ready" to shoot, but as "willing"- I might draw my weapon not wanting to shoot someone, hoping not to have to shoot someone, but willing to do so if that is the only level of force which will stop the attack. Given that, I don't think we have an inevitable chain reaction, but a series of steps, however small and however instantaneously we may move from one to the next.
_________________ I'm liberal, pro-choice, and I carry a gun. Any questions?
My real name is Jeremiah (go figure).
|
|
|
|
|
mrokern
|
Post subject: Re: Reasonable force goes bad? Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:56 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm Posts: 2264 Location: Eden Prairie
|
Jeremiah wrote: Andrew Rothman wrote: I have a real problem with "don't draw unless you're ready to shoot." I understand being mentally prepared for the possibility, but the vast majority of DGUs end with no shots fired. We must be in the mindset that it may be necessary to fire, not that drawing starts an inevitable chain reaction ending in blood. I didn't see it as "ready" to shoot, but as "willing"- I might draw my weapon not wanting to shoot someone, hoping not to have to shoot someone, but willing to do so if that is the only level of force which will stop the attack. Given that, I don't think we have an inevitable chain reaction, but a series of steps, however small and however instantaneously we may move from one to the next. Yup. It's all about steps, and that word "willing". It's the idea of having a trigger, and not in the gun sense. What is the action that will cause the next step? That's the question your brain needs to be asking. -Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Rothman
|
Post subject: Re: Reasonable force goes bad? Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:57 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am Posts: 6767 Location: Twin Cities
|
|
|
|
|
glkguy
|
Post subject: Re: Reasonable force goes bad? Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:04 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:48 pm Posts: 4 Location: Inver Grove Heights
|
Wow I'm gone at work for a few hours and so many great points are discussed. As far as what Andrew said... Andrew Rothman wrote: I have a real problem with "don't draw unless you're ready to shoot." I understand being mentally prepared for the possibility, but the vast majority of DGUs end with no shots fired. We must be in the mindset that it may be necessary to fire, not that drawing starts an inevitable chain reaction ending in blood. That is right at the point of my main concern. I'll give a more specific example I discussed with a forum member today at lunch. Take the example below: ruffelo wrote: We were walking through the skyway system in Minneapolis, near St. Olaf's (maybe I can zero in the location tomorrow). I was fairly aware of our surroundings, but we were also engaged in conversation. I had noticed the man in a blue jacket standing up ahead in the street-overpass, but he seemed to be talking on his cell phone. As we entered this particular overpass, he stepped towards the middle with his hand inside his jacket and loudly commanded, "Don't Move!" It is worth noting that this was the moment I realized that no one else was within sight and he had glass and a brick wall behind him.
At this point I quickly scraped aside my coat and sweater and acquired a firm grip on my handgun (IWB - 3 o'clock), as I said "What!?!" I doubt he could actually see the gun. While reaching for my gun, I thrust my weak arm out in a 'halt' sign. I don't know exactly how everything happened so quickly, but it was just as I practice.
He seemed very surprised at the resistance and quickly said, "Naw, it's cool, it's cool." This attitude change, his eyes, and his quick turn to run made it obvious that he knew exactly what I had my hand on and this was not his 'first time.'
Now change this experience so that when ruffelo reached for his gun the BG turned towards and started walking closer. He may then have have drawn as a "reasonable force" response. Moreover if he waited to draw it may have become too late (need to draw if the BG is <20 feet away) to prepare for the increasing threat. If the BG then pulled his EMPTY hands from his pocked and jumped at ruffelo he may then have reasonable fear GBH or death because the gun is exposed and could be taken. Drawing the gun is an act that cannot be undone. Would the act that may have been reasonable force at the time now by consitered an unreasonable escillation in force because new information became available (that his hands were empty)? Any lawyers have an opinion or experience? Glkguy
|
|
|
|
|
Macx
|
Post subject: Re: Reasonable force goes bad? Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:53 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:37 pm Posts: 1757 Location: Whittier
|
IANAL, however . . .. I disagree with the premise of the question. It disregards the possibilty of retreat, when alking in the skyway, there is always an opportunity to go forward or back the way you came. The gun can be re holstered once a safe distance is achieved from the threat. Until the threat isn't a threat . . . there is no difference in the situation than when you'd first drawn. (Just because the BG didn't have anything in the jacket pocket doesn't mean the BG isn't carring IWB same as you) It isn't your job to assume one way or the other, it is your job to safely extract yourselves if you can and to use force if you have to.
_________________ Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a
lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become
a law unto himself; it invites anarchy .” Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438
|
|
|
|
|
mrokern
|
Post subject: Re: Reasonable force goes bad? Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:37 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm Posts: 2264 Location: Eden Prairie
|
Macx wrote: IANAL, however . . .. I disagree with the premise of the question. It disregards the possibilty of retreat, when alking in the skyway, there is always an opportunity to go forward or back the way you came. The gun can be re holstered once a safe distance is achieved from the threat. Until the threat isn't a threat . . . there is no difference in the situation than when you'd first drawn. (Just because the BG didn't have anything in the jacket pocket doesn't mean the BG isn't carring IWB same as you) It isn't your job to assume one way or the other, it is your job to safely extract yourselves if you can and to use force if you have to. Not necessarily. Your duty is to retreat if possible. For example, if you are 5'10" and 325 pounds, and your attacker is 6'0" and 180 pounds, you aren't expected to be able to run away without him being able to catch you and cause you harm. That's the theory. Would a jury of reasonable people see it that way? Who knows.... -Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Macx
|
Post subject: Re: Reasonable force goes bad? Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:40 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:37 pm Posts: 1757 Location: Whittier
|
Our hero still has his gun drawn until a safe distance away . .. a threat advancing on a person with a drawn firearm is obviously insane (which can be a force multiplier, man crazy folk can be strong!) or hopped up on something (which can be a force multiplier, man high folk can be strong!) The threat of attack via Quote: he stepped towards the middle with his hand inside his jacket and loudly commanded, "Don't Move!" transforms to an empty handed lunger . . . . I don't believe there is a point where either A. The attacker is still a threat or B. there is a possibility of retreat is not true. Either the BG has been a continous threat or there has been a break in the action where a tactical withdrawl (backing away gun stil drawn) is possible. Even if I was a good runner, I can't imagine turning my back on such a BG. Incidently, when he "pulled his EMPTY hands from his pocked and jumped at ruffelo", it kinda makes a difference if this is "jumped at" like "see if I can get you to flinch and put a hole in the skyway floor, so you'll be the @$$" or is this "jumped" like "I'm gonna shove that peashooter where the sun don't shine" kinda intent/ action. At least I think it presents a difference.
_________________ Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a
lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become
a law unto himself; it invites anarchy .” Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438
|
|
|
|
|
kimberman
|
Post subject: Re: Reasonable force goes bad? Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:03 pm |
|
Wise Elder |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm Posts: 2782 Location: St. Paul
|
glkguy wrote: If reasonable force (in the form of a drawn weapon pointed at the ground) was being used to prevent an attack, could continued aggression (running towards the gun) suggest that they intend to inflict great bodily harm or death? YES.
_________________ President of AACFI, GOCRA, CCRN, and A2A
|
|
|
|
|
tman065
|
Post subject: Re: Reasonable force goes bad? Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:02 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:19 am Posts: 810 Location: Northern MN
|
kimberman wrote: glkguy wrote: If reasonable force (in the form of a drawn weapon pointed at the ground) was being used to prevent an attack, could continued aggression (running towards the gun) suggest that they intend to inflict great bodily harm or death? YES. The thread may be locked now.
_________________ Proud, Service Oriented, Rural LEO, or "BADGED COWBOY" Certified MN Carry Permit Instructor
|
|
|
|
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
|