2 teens killed after allegedly breaking into home;

[jshuberg]

Yeah, unfortunately there's a lot of stupid people in the world. The best advice a person can receive has little to do with statutes, case law, etc. It's simply to not be stupid, and to always be the good guy.

Good guys don't shoot people when they don't have to. Good guys don't try to find a legal angle that would justify it. Good guys simply do the right thing and will only use deadly force when there is no other option left.

[Thunder71]

Definitely.

But let's not forget that good guys also don't break into homes...

[TomS]

The best advice a person can receive has little to do with statutes, case law, etc. It's simply to not be stupid, and to always be the good guy.

Don't go Stupid places with Stupid people and do Stupid things.

[tepin]

What I believe is that you made the statement that there was a MN Supreme Court case that stated that the felony crime in a defense of dwelling defense must be a violent crime. When I asked you about it, you went on to speak about reasonableness, insurance fraud, vibrators and toasters, but never answered my question, what is that case?

I mention "reasonableness" because that is what our self-defense law is based on.
I mention "insurance fraud" as an example of a non-violent felony.
I use the term "violent felony" to mean the "unlawful assault in the home".

If the black letter law (the statute as written) of 609.065 was the law in Minnesota, a person could shoot someone in their home for committing a non-violent felony. This is not the law in Minnesota. Statute 609.065 has been defined by the courts (here is the case you have been seeking):

We agree that when acting in self-defense in the home, a person should not be required to retreat from the home before using reasonable force to defend himself, regardless of whether the aggressor is also rightfully in the home. Thus we adopt the following rule: There is no duty to retreat from one's own home when acting in self-defense in the home, regardless of whether the aggressor is a co-resident. But the lack of a duty to retreat does not abrogate the obligation to act reasonably when using force in self-defense. Therefore, in all situations in which a party claims self-defense, even absent a duty to retreat, the key inquiry will still be into the reasonableness of the use of force and the level of force under the specific circumstances of each case.
>>>> CLICK HERE <<<<

After reading that ^^^^ and having the law restated by our Governor >>> HERE <<< - anyone that believes they can use deadly force in the home for anything other than preventing a violent felony is absolutely wrong. This is why, when I am asked about defense of dwelling, I tell people to focus on matters of personal safety and not property crimes or theft. As I mentioned previously, there is probably a reason you keep reading / hearing the statement I made in my original post; maybe because it is in-fact is true.

As far as castle doctrine in MN goes, and whether we have a form of it or not, it depends on who you ask. Read Carothers, the Supreme Court refers to the common law notion of the home being a man castle, and that it is the basis of defense if dwelling. I believe it was Rep. Tony Cornish who made a correction during a committee hearing last year stating that MN does in fact have a version of castle doctrine through case law. It depends entirely on how rigidly you want to define castle doctrine. Do we have what Florida has, no. But we do have something similar that has been described as a form of castle doctrine by many people familiar with the term.

Forget Carothers. Glowacki is more recent and the explanation for the 2012 VETO of "castle doctrine" in Minnesota references Glowacki as settled law for defense of dwelling. Castle doctrine, in the traditional sense, removes the reasonable test by stating in statute a presumption of being in fear of bodily harm. There is no such "presumption" in Minnesota, as can be seen in the MN Supreme Court Glowacki case (see case and quote above). A persons home in Minnesota might be their castle, but the castle in Minnesota cannot be defended in the same way as, for example, a castle in Wisconsin or California. Having no duty to retreat in the home does not equate to castle doctrine. If we had castle doctrine in Minnesota, where did the 2012 veto of castle doctrine come from?

[jshuberg]

Glowacki does not deal with defense of dwelling, it deals with self defense in the home. Two different things. Self defense in the home requires a reasonable belief of imminent great bodily harm or death. Defense of dwelling however requires an intruder committing a felony. And burglary is a felony. You can't infer the requirements for one defense as also being required for a completely different defense. Carothers is the main case law speaking to this topic.

Also, the governors veto didn't speak to defense if dwelling. It spoke to self defense in the home, citing Glowacki. This case does not address what we are talking about, which is the ability to use force, including deadly force when reasonable, to prevent a felony from being committed in the home by an intruder.

It seems we're going roundy-round on this, which isn't really benefitting anyone at this point. If you provide the case you originally claimed existed, that's all I want.

[tepin]

Glowacki does not deal with defense of dwelling, it deals with self defense in the home. Two different things. Self defense in the home requires a reasonable belief of imminent great bodily harm or death. Defense of dwelling however requires an intruder committing a felony. And burglary is a felony. You can't infer the requirements for one defense as also being required for a completely different defense. Carothers is the main case law speaking to this topic. Also, the governors veto didn't speak to defense if dwelling. It spoke to self defense in the home, citing Glowacki. This case does not address what we are talking about, which is the ability to use force, including deadly force when reasonable, to prevent a felony from being committed in the home by an intruder.

You are NOT CORRECT. Fear of great bodily harm is not required in the home before using deadly force (Minnesota v. Akeem Pendleton). A claim of "self-defense" in the home becomes a "defense of dwelling" claim. A threat of bodily harm in the home made by an intruder is a felony.

Also, the governors veto didn't speak to defense if dwelling....

The Governors veto wasn't about defense of dwelling? Are you kidding???? The VETO was for legislation pertaining to CASTLE DOCTRINE. Castle doctrine is all about defense of dwelling.

If you provide the case you originally claimed existed, that's all I want.

Reread all my posts in this thread. Its there, you just don't want to see it.

[gunsmith]

Guys, put a shout out to Mike Freeman (Hennepin County Attorney) He seems to be a 'reasonable man' even though it appears he wants to change his title to Governor Freeman.

[jshuberg]

Self defense and defense of dwelling are two separate justifications for using deadly force, and the requirements for them are different.

For example, a person could claim self defense when defense of dwelling doesn't apply, such as between two co-residents. A person could claim defense of dwelling where self defense doesn't apply, such as when a person doesn't fear great bodily harm or death. Or a person could claim both defenses, as is most commonly the case.

Self defense requires a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death, whether inside or outside the home. Inside the home, there is no duty to retreat. That is the only substantial difference between self defense inside and outside the home.

Defense of dwelling can only be claimed in the home, and against an intruder. Rather than requiring a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death, defense of dwelling requires that a person attempt to stop a felony from being committed in the home.

Glowacki deals with self defense, not defense of dwelling. The governors veto, which you asked me to read, argued that codifying castle doctrine in statute wasn't necessary, as there is already a statute and case law allowing deadly force in self defense in the home. The governors veto made no mention of defense of dwelling, or any case law that speaks to it.

I believe you are confusing the two defenses, and believing case law that speaks to one as having also spoke to the other. They are completely separate, and self defense in the home is not the same as defense of dwelling. Self defense in the home does not become defense of dwelling. They can both be claimed by the same defendant for the same incident where they both apply, but you are wrong when you state that self defense becomes defense of dwelling when it occurs in the home.

With this understanding, reread your posts, and you'll understand my confusion in your arguments. Unless you can provide what you claimed existed, a Supreme Court case involving defense of dwelling (as opposed to self defense), that explicitly attached a requirement of a crime of violence to the act of preventing a felony in the home, I'm going to gracefully exit this conversation.

It's an interesting discussion, but I don't think continuing it will be of any benefit to anyone. Thanks though.

[MNGunGuy]

....

Your posts have been extremely enlightening and deserving of it's own "sticky" thread. Thanks for taking the time to type all that up.