2 teens killed after allegedly breaking into home;

[gunsmith]

Juror said, "Deranged Individual"....no First Degree Murder in that case......

[MNGunGuy]

Pete Orput, prosecutor for the case, spoke to the press recently and said about the best thing everyone should take away from this.

“You can kill somebody coming into your house if you believe they’re going to commit a felony, but do you want to? Do you want to do that?” he said. “You’re going to live the rest of your life with the regret that you killed somebody over property.”

[xd ED]

Pete Orput, prosecutor for the case, spoke to the press recently and said about the best thing everyone should take away from this.

“You can kill somebody coming into your house if you believe they’re going to commit a felony, but do you want to? Do you want to do that?” he said. “You’re going to live the rest of your life with the regret that you killed somebody over property.”

Quite likely it was a carefully crafted remark to acknowledge the law, yet draw attention away from the self defense issue and focus on the value of property vs human life, which resonates with most people.
I'm curious why they brought in this guy from Washington County.....

[jgalt]

I'm curious why they brought in this guy from Washington County.....

A little Google-fu leads me to think MNGunGuy found the quote here --> http://www.startribune.com/local/east/257435001.html

It contains this bit that addresses your question:

Orput, the Washington County attorney since 2010, agreed to prosecute the case at the request of the Morrison County attorney after that small office became overwhelmed with felony cases, he said.

[xd ED]

I'm curious why they brought in this guy from Washington County.....

A little Google-fu leads me to think MNGunGuy found the quote here --> http://www.startribune.com/local/east/257435001.html

It contains this bit that addresses your question:

Orput, the Washington County attorney since 2010, agreed to prosecute the case at the request of the Morrison County attorney after that small office became overwhelmed with felony cases, he said.

Thanks for the link.
He comes across as a decent and reasonable guy, as opposed to someone making political hay from this tragedy.

[bstrawse]

Pete is both a good man & prosecutor as well as being a board advisor to one of the largest gun clubs in the state... he was not looking to make any political points here...
b

[20mm]

What's wrong with killing people over property? The government seems to think it's a great idea. Hell they're okay doing it just over trespass.

[tepin]

Actually you cannot kill someone over property in MN. The MN Supreme Court has ruled that the felony you wish to prevent in the home must be a violent felony. Any show of aggression or furtive movement would qualify. You'll also need to (at some point) articulate your "reasonable belief" that you were about to be assaulted. If you cannot explain it, don't do it.

Pete Orput, prosecutor for the case, spoke to the press recently and said about the best thing everyone should take away from this.

“You can kill somebody coming into your house if you believe they’re going to commit a felony, but do you want to? Do you want to do that?” he said. “You’re going to live the rest of your life with the regret that you killed somebody over property.”

[jshuberg]

Actually you cannot kill someone over property in MN. The MN Supreme Court has ruled that the felony you wish to prevent in the home must be a violent felony.

I don't believe this is true. I've heard it stated numerous times, yet no one has ever been able to provide an actual case that states this. If you have one, please provide it.

Even if there was case law that states that defense of dwelling can only be used to prevent a violent felony, burglary *is* a violent felony as defined under MN 624.712 Subd. 5:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.712

Burglary in the first degree is defined as:

609.582 BURGLARY.
Subdivision 1.Burglary in the first degree.

Whoever enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime, or enters a building without consent and commits a crime while in the building, either directly or as an accomplice, commits burglary in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $35,000, or both, if:

(a) the building is a dwelling and another person, not an accomplice, is present in it when the burglar enters or at any time while the burglar is in the building;

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id ... .609.582.1

If a person enters your home without consent and then commits a crime while you are there, it is felony 1st degree burglary, a crime of violence. Under these circumstances, *any* crime committed after the initial trespass is a felony crime of violence.

This is further evidenced in the State v. Carothers ruling, where the MN Supreme Court said the following:

We hold that the duty to retreat does not attach to defense of dwelling claims, [1] and that it was error for the trial court to instruct the jury that appellant was under a duty to retreat from his home before using deadly force to prevent the commission of a felony, first-degree burglary, within his home.
...
When events occur in a defendant's home, the factual requisite for self-defense using deadly force (fear of great bodily harm) can often also be expressed as the factual requisite for defense of dwelling, prevention of a felony assault or burglary.
...
We cannot ignore the anomaly of requiring a duty to retreat for self-defense within the home but not requiring a duty to retreat for defense of dwelling. To require a person claiming self-defense to retreat but not require a person claiming defense of dwelling to retreat would provide greater protection to a person safeguarding property than to a person safeguarding life. As the law clearly values life above property, a person claiming self-defense within the home should not have a duty to retreat before using deadly force.

http://mn.gov/web/prod/static/lawlib/li ... c89886.htm

Although the Carothers case was addressing whether there is a duty to retreat from a persons home prior to using deadly force in self defense, they contrast self defense with defense of dwelling in doing so. On two occasions the MN Supreme court refers to defense of dwelling as being being used to prevent a burglary, and on another two occasions refer to defense of dwelling as being used to protect property. If defense of dwelling was not intended as a means to prevent burglary or protect property, I doubt the court would have introduced this wording into the ruling.

All of this being the case though, DO NOT SHOOT SOMEONE OVER A PROPERTY CRIME!!!. If you do, you will be arrested. You will go to jail. You may be there for a year or more while your lawyer prepares your case. It will cost you tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. You will likely be sued by the bad guy or his next of kin, and they may end up with everything else you own. The jury may find that despite the statute and case law, that they believe the prosecutions version of events and convict you. You will very likely suffer depression, PTSD, and even become suicidal for having killed someone over a property crime. None of this is in any way pleasant, or worth defending your property over. In short, if you shoot someone over property, it will ruin your life, even if at the end of it all you didn't break the law in doing so. It's a much better idea to simply call the cops, and let your homeowners/renters insurance deal with replacing any losses.

I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

[tman]

...I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

I think first degree burglary is, by state definition, a crime of violence. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?year=2013&id=624.712#stat.624.712.5

Subd. 5.Crime of violence.

"Crime of violence" means: felony convictions of the following offenses: sections 609.185 (murder in the first degree); 609.19 (murder in the second degree); 609.195 (murder in the third degree); 609.20 (manslaughter in the first degree); 609.205 (manslaughter in the second degree); 609.215 (aiding suicide and aiding attempted suicide); 609.221 (assault in the first degree); 609.222 (assault in the second degree); 609.223 (assault in the third degree); 609.2231 (assault in the fourth degree); 609.229 (crimes committed for the benefit of a gang); 609.235 (use of drugs to injure or facilitate crime); 609.24 (simple robbery); 609.245 (aggravated robbery); 609.25 (kidnapping); 609.255 (false imprisonment); 609.322 (solicitation, inducement, and promotion of prostitution; sex trafficking); 609.342 (criminal sexual conduct in the first degree); 609.343 (criminal sexual conduct in the second degree); 609.344 (criminal sexual conduct in the third degree); 609.345 (criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree); 609.377 (malicious punishment of a child); 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child); 609.486 (commission of crime while wearing or possessing a bullet-resistant vest); 609.52 (involving theft of a firearm, theft involving the intentional taking or driving of a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner or authorized agent of the owner, theft involving the taking of property from a burning, abandoned, or vacant building, or from an area of destruction caused by civil disaster, riot, bombing, or the proximity of battle, and theft involving the theft of a controlled substance, an explosive, or an incendiary device); 609.561 (arson in the first degree); 609.562 (arson in the second degree); 609.582, subdivision 1, 2, or 3 (burglary in the first through third degrees); 609.66, subdivision 1e (drive-by shooting); 609.67 (unlawfully owning, possessing, operating a machine gun or short-barreled shotgun); 609.71 (riot); 609.713 (terroristic threats); 609.749 (stalking); 609.855, subdivision 5 (shooting at a public transit vehicle or facility); and chapter 152 (drugs, controlled substances); and an attempt to commit any of these offenses.

That, being said, if you shoot them as they're on the way out of your house with your flatscreen TV, I would imagine you'd have some 'splainin' to do....

[gunsmith]

I would also make the argument that 'Thought' 'Reasonable Opinion' are not available to the victim during the riot of an assault in the home.

I just woke up from a deep sleep and it took me a good three minutes to remember my name / what planet I'm on. And everything was a blur till I found my glasses.

If I recall correctly, the trial judge did not allow the defense to present expert witnesses to testify on physiological state of the shooter during a defensive gun use.

Why wasn't the trial televised....we'd be more informed as a result.

Watching the Zimmerman trial was an education....you could see that big-fat-pig-of-a-judge make unfair rulings and imagine that it was happening to you...the result being a realization that a courtroom IS THE VERY LAST PLACE ON EARTH YOU WANT TO BE.

[ex-LT]

You keep asking why the trial wasn't televised. In the time it's taken to you ask that question eighteen bazillion times, you could easily have found the answer via google....

Current rules in Minnesota allow cameras in criminal proceedings only if all parties to the case agree

Here's a link to the Minnesota Court Rules
Minnesota Court Rules
Rule 4.02(c) is the one that pertains to cameras in criminal trials.

Now you know.

[jshuberg]

That, being said, if you shoot them as they're on the way out of your house with your flatscreen TV, I would imagine you'd have some 'splainin' to do....

I'd also imagine that the next piece of case law that carry instructors teach to their students will have your name on it as well.... Do stupid things, win stupid prizes!

[gunsmith]

You keep asking why the trial wasn't televised. In the time it's taken to you ask that question eighteen bazillion times, you could easily have found the answer via google....

Current rules in Minnesota allow cameras in criminal proceedings only if all parties to the case agree

Here's a link to the Minnesota Court Rules
Minnesota Court Rules
Rule 4.02(c) is the one that pertains to cameras in criminal trials.

Now you know.

(c) A judge may authorize, with the consent of all parties in writing or made on the record prior to the commencement of the trial in criminal proceedings, and without the consent of all parties in civil proceedings, the photographic or electronic recording and reproduction of appropriate court proceedings under the following conditions:

(i) There shall be no audio or video coverage of jurors at any time during the trial, including voir dire.

(ii) There shall be no audio or video coverage of any witness who objects thereto in writing or on the record before testifying.

(iii) Audio or video coverage of judicial proceedings shall be limited to proceedings conducted within the courtroom, and shall not extend to activities or events substantially related to judicial proceedings that occur in other areas of the court building.

(iv) There shall be no audio or video coverage within the courtroom during recesses or at any other time the trial judge is not present and presiding.

(v) During or preceding a jury trial, there shall be no audio or video coverage of hearings that take place outside the presence of the jury. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing sentence, such hearings in criminal proceedings would include those to determine the admissibility of evidence, and those to determine various motions, such as motions to suppress evidence, for judgment of acquittal, in limine and to dismiss. This provision does not prohibit audio or video coverage of appropriate pretrial hearings in civil proceedings, such as hearings on dispositive motions.

(vi) There shall be no audio or video coverage in cases involving child custody, marriage dissolution, juvenile proceedings, child protection proceedings, paternity proceedings, petitions for orders for protection, motions to suppress evidence, police informants, relocated witnesses, sex crimes, trade secrets, undercover agents, and proceedings that are not accessible to the public.

(Added effective March 1, 2009; amended effective March 12, 2009; amended effective July 1, 2011.)

Short version: One party did not consent. I wonder which one or if both parties did not consent. With consent we could have seen the trial.

Consent not required for civil cases.

[tepin]

Actually you cannot kill someone over property in MN. The MN Supreme Court has ruled that the felony you wish to prevent in the home must be a violent felony. Any show of aggression or furtive movement would qualify. You'll also need to (at some point) articulate your "reasonable belief" that you were about to be assaulted. If you cannot explain it, don't do it.

I don't believe this is true. I've heard it stated numerous times, yet no one has ever been able to provide an actual case that states this. If you have one, please provide it.

The courts have ruled that 609.06 and 609.065 have to be construed together (Pari Materia: MN v. McKnown 1991). In other words, the reasonable test in 609.06 subd 1 (3) applies to statute 609.065. If this was not the case and we were simply able to interpret 609.065 as it was written, my wife could shoot and kill me for committing, for example, insurance fraud (felony) in our home.

In the home there is no duty to retreat and you need not be in fear of great bodily harm, only in fear of an assault prior to using deadly force to prevent the assault.

The safe bet for the homeowner is to apply the AOJ principals rather than attempting to identify the crime about to be committed (you cannot possibly know the intruders intent) and trying to decide if it is a felony. Too complicated and the wrong approach. Does he have ability & opportunity to assault me and do his actions and or words suggest he intends to carry out the assault? If the answer is 'yes' then deadly force would most likely be justified. The homeowner will need to articulate these points at some point to the police.

Which scenario works better?
Scenario 1:
LEO: Why did you shoot him?
ME: To prevent 1st degree burglary in my place of abode
LEO: How did you know he was going to commit 1st degree burglary as opposed to just stumbling through your unlocked door accidentally?
ME: Humm. Well.. I didn't think of that.
^^^^ actus reus + mens rea = Prosecution

Scenario 2:
LEO: Why did you shoot him twice in the back while he was laying on the floor?
ME: I ordered him to the ground, ankles crossed and palms facing the ceiling. When I reached for my cellphone his hands flipped and he uncrossed his ankles which, based on my training from the Massad Ayoob Group's MAG20 class, this is a pre-assault indicator. According to studies conducted by the Force Sciences Institute, a healthy teen or young adult can spring from the prone position in 0.5 seconds or less, making the threat to my families safety immediate.
LEO: Seems logical. The prosecutor will take a look at the specifics of this case.
^^^^ actus reus + proper mindset = reasonable doubt of wrongdoing

Want to know why double-taps are a good idea in addition to the old saying, "keep shooting until the threat stops"? Self-defense is an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense is reserved for intentional acts. Firing two or more times ensures that the discharge of the firearm wasn't accidental. By firing only one round, a prosecutor can claim your shooting was an accident and not self-defense (State of Florida v. Police Office Luis Alvarez - the original George Zimmerman case from 1983).

MN v. Thomas Jerome McCuiston - Defense of dwelling in 609.065 requires the "reasonable" test in 609.06.
MN v. William Glowacki - No duty to retreat from ones home but the use of force, including deadly force, must be reasonable for the circumstance.
MN v. Tony Lamar Carothers - No duty to retreat from ones home but the use of force, including deadly force, must be reasonable for the circumstance.
MN v. Boyce - Outlines the three factors that must exist in order for homicide to be justified under 609.06 and 609.065
MN v. Jeffrey Warren Baird - No duty to retreat from ones home, even if the aggressor is a co-resident.