MNGunTalk.com

jshuberg wrote:Legally a knife and a gun are both deadly weapons. So is a crowbar, baseball bat, etc when used as a weapon. If you are attacked with a lethal contact weapon, provided the attacker is within 21ft and advancing toward you, you are justified under current law in defending yourself with a gun. This is not considered an escalation of force.

Hanns wrote:So if they're 22 feet away with a knife it's not a deadly weapon? I'd be against any set distance in the law as it sets a bad or unrealistic standard. Granted popping someone with a knife at 800 meters with a scoped rifle might be not considered "immediate threat" I don't want to see 21 feet codified as "safe distance" as it's not.

I strongly disagree that a person threatening you with a knife must be within 21 feet to be considered a threat. If they're within that distance, you're already screwed.

tman wrote:I strongly disagree that a person threatening you with a knife must be within 21 feet to be considered a threat. If they're within that distance, you're already screwed.

You also have to factor in how long the knife is.

Why don't you guys leave the work of writing laws to lawyers. And heffay, you have to get over the fact that they are not going to write existing law into new law. The legislation was fine as it was written by the EXPERTS. It would not have enabled ANYONE to initiate a conflict and use deadly force when the tables were turned. I'm fed up with your bullsh!t. All you are doing is eroding support for well written legislation.

gyrfalcon wrote:

tman wrote:I strongly disagree that a person threatening you with a knife must be within 21 feet to be considered a threat. If they're within that distance, you're already screwed.

You also have to factor in how long the knife is.

May also depend if the perp is 90yrs old useing a walker and whether your already drawn down on them with a 12gauge and 00 or if you have your Jennings .22 in a belly band under your long handles and flannel under your down parka in northern Mn in January

tman wrote:I strongly disagree that a person threatening you with a knife must be within 21 feet to be considered a threat. If they're within that distance, you're already screwed.

One of the requirements for using deadly force in self defense is that the victim must reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death. There are 3 criteria that a jury must consider to determine if this condition requirement was met, they are ability, opportunity, and jeopardy.

The 21 foot rule is not a legal requirement, it's a tool used by defense attorneys to demonstrate to a jury that opportunity existed. It's based off the Tueller drill that demonstrates that an average attacker is capable of crossing 21 feet in 1.5 seconds or less, which is less than the time it takes for an average shooter to draw their weapon and fire 2 shots center mass. It is by no means the only way to demonstrate that opportunity existed, but is one of the more common ways since most lethal force encounters happen well inside of this distance. Don't think of it as a legal requirement or even an absolute measurement in distance. It's simply a rule of thumb for how far away someone with a contact weapon can be and still posses the opportunity to cause great bodily harm or death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _11549909/

One thing is for sure after of all this , We'll never see a stand your ground law passed in Mn

jshuberg wrote:

tman wrote:I strongly disagree that a person threatening you with a knife must be within 21 feet to be considered a threat. If they're within that distance, you're already screwed.

One of the requirements for using deadly force in self defense is that the victim must reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death. There are 3 criteria that a jury must consider to determine if this condition requirement was met, they are ability, opportunity, and jeopardy.

The 21 foot rule is not a legal requirement, it's a tool used by defense attorneys to demonstrate to a jury that opportunity existed. It's based off the Tueller drill that demonstrates that an average attacker is capable of crossing 21 feet in 1.5 seconds or less, which is less than the time it takes for an average shooter to draw their weapon and fire 2 shots center mass. It is by no means the only way to demonstrate that opportunity existed, but is one of the more common ways since most lethal force encounters happen well inside of this distance. Don't think of it as a legal requirement or even an absolute measurement in distance. It's simply a rule of thumb for how far away someone with a contact weapon can be and still posses the opportunity to cause great bodily harm or death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _11549909/

Say you have a child with you, or are with a friend who uses a cane, or are in a confined space...

The 21 foot guideline goes out the window.

NOTHING is absolute here.


Sent from my iPhone using that app which shall not be named.

LarryP wrote:One thing is for sure after of all this , We'll never see a stand your ground law passed in Mn

That's why I like to have these kinds of discussions about it, to help educate people as to the reasoning as to why it would be good law. There is so much misinformation out there that even quite a few of us 'gun nuts' have a misunderstanding as to what the law actually does. We should encourage these conversations so that more people become educated on the subject. My opinion is that most reasonable people, given an understanding of what stand your ground actually is, would in fact support it.

My ability to retreat is limited since I am a stinking cripple. I hope would be a factor in any legal matter; it certainly is a factor for me if a confrontational situation should arise.

Rodentman wrote:My ability to retreat is limited since I am a stinking cripple. I hope would be a factor in any legal matter; it certainly is a factor for me if a confrontational situation should arise.

The actual wording in case law is the absence of a reasonable possibility of retreat to avoid the danger. Someone with an injury or disability that would limit their ability to retreat should be OK to stand their ground, as retreat wouldn't be a reasonable possibility even if an avenue of retreat existed. I'm not a lawyer, but I think this is just common sense, and I wouldn't expect a prosecutor to argue that a person needed to legally do something they were physically incapable of in order to clam self defense.

Then again, lawyers aren't often known for their common sense, so your results may vary.

«so your results may vary.» At my age they often do.

In a way, we're all armchair lawyers - myself included. Any real lawyers on here? I'd really like to get the facts straight. Is there a good source? Yes, I've read the actual law, but that's in "lawyer-ese". I'm talking about what it means in layman's terms. What can and can't we do? Obviously, nothing is 100% all-inclusive for every situation, but I'd like something that is as concrete as I/we can get.

Help.

XDM45 wrote:In a way, we're all armchair lawyers - myself included. Any real lawyers on here? I'd really like to get the facts straight. Is there a good source? Yes, I've read the actual law, but that's in "lawyer-ese". I'm talking about what it means in layman's terms. What can and can't we do? Obviously, nothing is 100% all-inclusive for every situation, but I'd like something that is as concrete as I/we can get.

Help.

A lawyers opinion isn't what matters... You can find two reputable lawyers who will disagree.

The law is enforced however the police and prosecutor want it to be; after that the court decides and it becomes case law. Case law has the final say until it is overturned... There is no cut and dry law, it is all a matter of opinion. That is why you don't want to have to use force, especially not deadly force.

As concrete as you can get is case law.

TTS wrote:

XDM45 wrote:In a way, we're all armchair lawyers - myself included. Any real lawyers on here? I'd really like to get the facts straight. Is there a good source? Yes, I've read the actual law, but that's in "lawyer-ese". I'm talking about what it means in layman's terms. What can and can't we do? Obviously, nothing is 100% all-inclusive for every situation, but I'd like something that is as concrete as I/we can get.

Help.

A lawyers opinion isn't what matters... You can find two reputable lawyers who will disagree.

The law is enforced however the police and prosecutor want it to be; after that the court decides and it becomes case law. Case law has the final say until it is overturned... There is no cut and dry law, it is all a matter of opinion. That is why you don't want to have to use force, especially not deadly force.

As concrete as you can get is case law.

Thank you for that. So each case is unique and what worked for one (or all previous cases) may (and probably won't) work for any current case. Those previous cases merely set a precedence, a legal foundation, but not any kind of absolute position or answer. It makes one afraid to defend themselves should the need ever arise. Personally, I'd rather be dead than go to prison.

XDM45 wrote:

TTS wrote:

XDM45 wrote:In a way, we're all armchair lawyers - myself included. Any real lawyers on here? I'd really like to get the facts straight. Is there a good source? Yes, I've read the actual law, but that's in "lawyer-ese". I'm talking about what it means in layman's terms. What can and can't we do? Obviously, nothing is 100% all-inclusive for every situation, but I'd like something that is as concrete as I/we can get.

Help.

A lawyers opinion isn't what matters... You can find two reputable lawyers who will disagree.

The law is enforced however the police and prosecutor want it to be; after that the court decides and it becomes case law. Case law has the final say until it is overturned... There is no cut and dry law, it is all a matter of opinion. That is why you don't want to have to use force, especially not deadly force.

As concrete as you can get is case law.

Thank you for that. So each case is unique and what worked for one (or all previous cases) may (and probably won't) work for any current case. Those previous cases merely set a precedence, a legal foundation, but not any kind of absolute position or answer. It makes one afraid to defend themselves should the need ever arise. Personally, I'd rather be dead than go to prison.

Yes, that is my opinion and I think facts back it up... What is the saying? Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

The shark tank analogy is the best I have heard for use of deadly force. If it isn't worth jumping into a shark tank for, it's not worth killing for. I would jump in to save my kids or wife but not for my wallet or car.