Archived Posts » 59,726,163
Any lawyers want to explain how this is nonsensical "shoot first" bill related
2/27/2012 9:25:22 PM
A local blogger that can be found by searching for "Common gun sense" recently parroted the comment
Can a lawyer please explain to her how nonsensical this comment is? She will not publish your comment if it is all attacking so please use your nicest lawyer behavior.
No one in Minnesota has been found guilty of justifiable homicide and put into prison for it.
Can a lawyer please explain to her how nonsensical this comment is? She will not publish your comment if it is all attacking so please use your nicest lawyer behavior.
The title to the post in question is "Is it ok to say anything"
EDIT> Please do not post a hotlink of her blog she will come here and read the comments and try and use them as ammo against us
2/27/2012 9:47:55 PM
She used the quote as a reason we do not need to pass the SF1357/HF1467
2/27/2012 10:18:22 PM
you mean how it is impossible to be found guilty of being innocent?
2/27/2012 10:22:28 PM
Originally Posted By J75player:
you mean how it is impossible to be found guilty of being innocent?
you mean how it is impossible to be found guilty of being innocent?
correct she does not seem to understand the term justified.
2/27/2012 11:29:50 PM
What's the point? Arguing with someone who has already made up your mind is like trying to flush a Koran down the toilet. It'll never work and You'll just be frustrated in the end...
2/28/2012 2:20:06 PM
No one in MN has been found guilty of consensual sex with their spouse and been jailed for it or even put in the sex offender registry either.
2/28/2012 7:19:42 PM
Originally Posted By Casper507:
No one in MN has been found guilty of consensual sex with their spouse and been jailed for it or even put in the sex offender registry either.
No one in MN has been found guilty of consensual sex with their spouse and been jailed for it or even put in the sex offender registry either.
Yep.
She basicaly said "No person has ever been found guilty of not commiitng a crime and been put in jail for it".
The bill expands the definition of "justifiable" by removing the so-called legal "duty to retreat" (which violates one's human right to self defense, life, liberty and property).
3/3/2012 1:56:30 AM
That sounds almost identical to the response I received from Senator Lourey. Must be another canned argument.
3/3/2012 8:11:52 AM
Originally Posted By AFTERMATH_MN:
That sounds almost identical to the response I received from Senator Lourey. Must be another canned argument.
That sounds almost identical to the response I received from Senator Lourey. Must be another canned argument.
It sure does. These folks send their vetted talking points to each other all the time.
3/3/2012 4:14:34 PM
Tell me if I am understanding the current law and proposed law.
Current Law:
#1 you have to be in a situation where a 'reasonable person' would be in fear for life or at least grave danger of major injury
#2 Your choice to shoot has to be seen as the best choice in that situation by a 'reasonable person'
So in theory at least the jury could agree that yea the guy who is robbing you at knife point meets criteria #1 but your decision to shoot him is wrong because you could have tried to run away, or given him the money and he probably would have let you go, etc etc.
Proposed Law:
#1 you have to be in a situation where a 'reasonable person' would be in fear for life or at least grave danger of major injury
#2 no other criteria.
What the new law means is that you'd only ever be asking the jury if the THREAT was one a reasonable person would perceive as major. Your strategy for how to deal with this threat is up to you and not up for debate.
Is my understanding correct?
Current Law:
#1 you have to be in a situation where a 'reasonable person' would be in fear for life or at least grave danger of major injury
#2 Your choice to shoot has to be seen as the best choice in that situation by a 'reasonable person'
So in theory at least the jury could agree that yea the guy who is robbing you at knife point meets criteria #1 but your decision to shoot him is wrong because you could have tried to run away, or given him the money and he probably would have let you go, etc etc.
Proposed Law:
#1 you have to be in a situation where a 'reasonable person' would be in fear for life or at least grave danger of major injury
#2 no other criteria.
What the new law means is that you'd only ever be asking the jury if the THREAT was one a reasonable person would perceive as major. Your strategy for how to deal with this threat is up to you and not up for debate.
Is my understanding correct?
3/3/2012 7:04:23 PM
right now if you were to be attacked on the street by a man with a gun. you are required to flee, you
CAN use deadly force to protect yourself instead of fleeing, but the burden of proof is on you to prove
that you could not safely retreat from the threat. so even if you saved the lives of yourself and your
children while you were walking down the street, you could goto prison for murder. under the new
law the duty to retreat is not an element of justified use of deadly force.
CAN use deadly force to protect yourself instead of fleeing, but the burden of proof is on you to prove
that you could not safely retreat from the threat. so even if you saved the lives of yourself and your
children while you were walking down the street, you could goto prison for murder. under the new
law the duty to retreat is not an element of justified use of deadly force.
