Michael Schwartz Convicted

[JohnGageMN]

Care to elaborate?

[hammAR]

Care to elaborate?

I see the potential for a dangerous void (thin ice) between:

a person claiming defense of dwelling to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling

and

the police don't see intent of burglary

it is not clear-cut and in a he said, she said....police (evidence or lack of)are going to win in MN......
I believe that in other states with a clear castle doctrine, it wouldn't be nearly as vague and open to interpolation...

$.02

[JohnGageMN]

Care to elaborate?

I see the potential for a dangerous void (thin ice) between:

a person claiming defense of dwelling to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling

and

the police don't see intent of burglary

it is not clear-cut and in a he said, she said....police (evidence or lack of)are going to win in MN......
I believe that in other states with a clear castle doctrine, it wouldn't be nearly as vague and open to interpolation...

$.02

No argument here, having a proper castle doctrine statute, and for that matter, a stand your ground statute, is a far better solution than what currently exists. These things may be possible in the next two years with the new legislature too.

That said, the case law from the Minnesota Supreme Court is fairly clear:

A duty to retreat does not attach to defense of dwelling claims. So long as a person claiming defense of dwelling meets all of the criteria for making his or her claim – that the killing was done in the belief that it was necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling, that the person's judgment as to the gravity of the situation was reasonable under the circumstances, and that the person's election to defend his or her dwelling was such as a reasonable person would have made in light of the danger to be apprehended – the person need not have attempted to retreat from his or her home.

I think the gentleman in the present case likely fails the test on more than one of these criteria. In addition, I believe case law defines the common hallway of an apartment complex as a "public area", and not part of your dwelling.

[scotts87iroc]

I think the gentleman in the present case likely fails the test on more than one of these criteria. In addition, I believe case law defines the common hallway of an apartment complex as a "public area", and not part of your dwelling.

Again, based on the story I saw on Kare11 that did not mention the hallway scenario and such, I was concerned about the fact that someone can break into your apartment and you shoot them, regardless of who it is, and you go to jail for reckless handling of a firearm. That was my initial thought after reading only the Kare11 story.

I do agree that by going into the hall, fighting and whatnot, the case now has merit. I started this with the questions I did because it didn't make sense that you would go to jail for shooting an intruder. I figured there was more to it than what the news report I posted mentioned. This turned out to be a good discussion, but because of the back and forth of what members here think is law and allowed, tells me that everybody on this board should get as much support as they can to get the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground defined in Minnesota. I don't want to leave my life in the hands of how the police interpret a he said/she said situation. I think we've all seen shows that depict this kind of scenario. The police are human also and can be err'd in their remembering of a situation or the knowledge of the law they defend.

[JohnGageMN]

<snip> everybody on this board should get as much support as they can to get the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground defined in Minnesota.

No doubt. I will defer to the esteemed law professor from Hamline U to let us know if there is a bigger legislative priority, but I would think we should start constructing the campaign to get these things done working with all of our newly elected, sympathetically-minded state representatives and senators. I think I read somewhere that the aforementioned esteemed professor stated this and more may be discussed at the GOCRA meeting in January.

Edit: it was Andrew who said that, not Joe.

[PileDriver]

Him being drunk is the deal breaker, IMO. Would this be a lot different if they weren't "smashed" an hour before? How can you articulate you believed there was a clear and present danger when the people who saw you an hour before called you "extremely smashed"? You may think you're able to, but it won't fly.

I don't think this case should be a support/debate case for castle doctrine. I don't think it'll help much.

[monschman]

Why are you watching KARE11 for "news", this station is only good for sweatermeat. Aka rena

[scotts87iroc]

Why are you watching KARE11 for "news", this station is only good for sweatermeat. Aka rena

Well, since I am in Orlando and work for a company in Minneapolis, I wanted to look at the local weather when I saw a message from a coworker that said he wasn't going to battle traffic and just work from home. I brought up KARE11news.com for the weather and saw this on their other headlines. I don't watch the local news in Orlando either as the reporting is so sensationalized and such, but again, I saw this as a headline and decided to check it out.

My first post on this subject did ask for more details as I didn't believe the report was telling the whole story!

I also agree that this case would not be a good subject for the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground based on the full story. It would be a good case if it was based solely on the Kare11 report that leads you to think that he shot someone breaking into his apartment.