Home Defense Question

[gld1203]

And Castle Doctrine doesn't apply to the home? Again, if you don't have to retreat or make a reasonable effort to do so, then why are states passing those laws (in my opinion, to over ride bad case law set by judges who don't like firearms.)

There may not have ever been a successful lawsuit filed against a homeowner involved in a shooting. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There are always ambulance chasing lawyers who will go after anyone they think they can get some money from. They are perfectly willing to get their client to take an easy out of court settlement for a a small chunk of money rather than going all the way to trial. Some of the Castle Doctrine laws have been enacted to stop the frivoulous lawsuits which can easily cost tens of thousands of dollars and not be paid for by insurance. The original shooting my ave been to stop one kind of robbery, Castle laws have been enacted to stop a second kind of "legal" robbery.

All I'm saying, is that in many states, as in mine, I have to make a reasonable attempt to retreat before using deadly force. Hopefully, someday, that will change.

My first post is a direct response to your statement:

"I must respectfully call "bs" on those of you who say there is a duty to retreat in your own home, in Massachusetts, New Jersey, or any other state. Quote a statute if you can find it...you won't. Call a lawyer if you know one. "

I disagree with that satement because in some states that may not be true.

What state are you in? I'll try to find the statute.

 

[redbos]

I hope I never need an attorney, thanks for the info though. We have stupid gun laws here passed by "really smart" politicians........

 

[kennyb]

I hear what your saying, but remember most places consider it manslaughter if you shoot them more then once thats why I rather have the one shot from a shotgun knowing they wont get back up vs. a .22

from what code book are you citing this?

 

[Jswiney9]

all of these past .22 home defense weapon threads go under my "threads that have stood the test of time but shouldnt have" file. Im going to start selling tactical pillows for home defense. They will most definitely be black or OD green with a foam rubber insert for extra impact in case of home invasion.

 

[gld1203]

"All I'm saying, is that in many states, as in mine, I have to make a reasonable attempt to retreat before using deadly force. Hopefully, someday, that will change."


We're talking about being inside your home. In that context, the statement quoted above is simply inaccurate.

 

[mn_doggie]

What state are you in? I'll try to find the statute.

I'm in MN and the statute is 609.065, case law has confirmed that the "reasonable" rule in 609.06 also applies..

If you want more info on the case law dealing with the reasonable retreat issue, I suggest you contact attorney Marc Berris at 612-335-3578. He's one of a few attorneys in MN who specialized in Firearm Carry/Defense Issues. He's reviewed several of the books that are often used in the Permit to Carry classes needed for the carry permit in our state..

Again, my point is that you made a "blanket" statement about no duty to retreat that I believe is not correct in all states. It may be correct in some states. Readers of this forum come from a lot of different states and countries. They need to be aware that laws vary widely on self defense issues.

 

[captainjohnsofd]

How close is your closest neighbor? Buckshot is super effective but penetrated skimpy wallboard used in most private homes. Any projectile you launch that does not hit its intended target is a lawyer magnet. On Outdoor or Sportsman's Channel there was a show called Personal Defense which did shotgun tests on structural components. Slugs and 00 Buck penetrated multiple layers of sheetrock and 2X4's; small birdshot made devastating wounds but was far less likely to leave the average home. If your neighbor is a hundred yards away there is no problem with penetration. Those tests are probably on YouTube.

 

[gld1203]

Here's that statute:

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.


So deadly force is authorized by this statute, but the statute is silent on duty to retreat. I found this summary of a 1999 Minnesota Supreme Court decision, State v. Carothers:


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.

 

[redbos]

No slugs inside, Remington 00 Buck, I dont have a neighbor, but other loved ones in the home...... I see your point

How close is your closest neighbor? Buckshot is super effective but penetrated skimpy wallboard used in most private homes. Any projectile you launch that does not hit its intended target is a lawyer magnet. On Outdoor or Sportsman's Channel there was a show called Personal Defense which did shotgun tests on structural components. Slugs and 00 Buck penetrated multiple layers of sheetrock and 2X4's; small birdshot made devastating wounds but was far less likely to leave the average home. If your neighbor is a hundred yards away there is no problem with penetration. Those tests are probably on YouTube.

 

[mn_doggie]

Here's that statute:

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.


So deadly force is authorized by this statute, but the statute is silent on duty to retreat. I found this summary of a 1999 Minnesota Supreme Court decision, State v. Carothers:


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.

Here's the actual text from the MN Supreme court ruling in the case (Carothers) you mentioned. Notice that the court said MN differs from other jusrisdictions with respect to the Castle doctrine.

The principle that there is no duty to retreat inside one's home is generally termed the “castle doctrine.”   A majority, if not an overwhelming majority, of American jurisdictions have adopted it.   See Gainer v. State, 40 Md.App. 382, 391 A.2d 856, 860-61 (1978) (stating that castle doctrine is “universally recognized exception” to duty to retreat), cert. denied (Md. Dec. 15, 1978);  cf.  State v. Walton, 615 A.2d 469, 471 (R.I.1992) (stating that a “majority of American jurisdictions” recognize the castle doctrine).   Nevertheless, the four cases discussed above, although they do not acknowledge the castle doctrine or discuss the policies for or against it, do establish a line of Minnesota authority departing from the majority position and supporting the trial court's instruction in this case.

My point is again, even in your home, you may have a duty to retreat if it can be done reasonably.

 

[gld1203]

With all due respect, you may need to double check your quote. I couldn't find it in the Supreme Court decision. You may have taken it from the decision of the lower appellate court. I may be wrong.

The trial court told this to the jury: "The legal excuse of self defense is available only to those who act honestly and in good faith, even in one's place of abode. This includes the duty to retreat or avoid the danger if reasonably possible."

Minnesota's Supreme Court said this was not the law.

 

[mn_doggie]

With all due respect, you may need to double check your quote. I couldn't find it in the Supreme Court decision. You may have taken it from the decision of the lower appellate court. I may be wrong.

The trial court told this to the jury: "The legal excuse of self defense is available only to those who act honestly and in good faith, even in one's place of abode. This includes the duty to retreat or avoid the danger if reasonably possible."

Minnesota's Supreme Court said this was not the law.

You are right, I quoted from the appellate court.

The MN Supreme Court kicked the case back down for a new trial. Concerning the duty to retreat they said:

Until 1977, however, trial courts were provided a model instruction stating that there is no duty to retreat in self-defense cases. The fact that such an instruction was used at least intermittently through 1977 highlights the depth of confusion surrounding the duty to retreat in self-defense cases and undermines the state's contention that the duty to retreat is clearly inscribed in Minnesota self-defense law.

 

[gld1203]

You are right, I quoted from the appellate court.

The MN Supreme Court kicked the case back down for a new trial. Concerning the duty to retreat they said:

Until 1977, however, trial courts were provided a model instruction stating that there is no duty to retreat in self-defense cases. The fact that such an instruction was used at least intermittently through 1977 highlights the depth of confusion surrounding the duty to retreat in self-defense cases and undermines the state's contention that the duty to retreat is clearly inscribed in Minnesota self-defense law.

Ok. There used to be confusion in Minnesota on this issue, 35 years ago. I think it needs to be made clear, on this forum, for those guys who's eyes are getting crossed by reading this legalese, that there is no duty to retreat in your own home in Minnesota. Agree?

 

[les strat]

for $400, 6 shot tactical Mossy is best bang for buck. Short Barrel, pump, 5 shell holder on collapsible stock. And the pump has a strap so if you are holding in the dark or you get nervous/clammy hands in a high stress situation it is easy to chamber next round.

Absolutely the best HD gun IMO.

 

[Scuds03]

I just hate where the safety is on the mossy. How the hell are you supposed to use it while holding the pistol grip. Remington 870 has it in a much better location

 

[mn_doggie]

Ok. There used to be confusion in Minnesota on this issue, 35 years ago. I think it needs to be made clear, on this forum, for those guys who's eyes are getting crossed by reading this legalese, that there is no duty to retreat in your own home in Minnesota. Agree?

No, I only agree that everyone (myself included) are getting really tired of this legalese.

You are wrong in your contention that there is no duty to retreat in MN. Please reread the last sentence in a recent case before the MN SC. Here's the pertinent part: "state's contention that the duty to retreat is clearly inscribed in Minnesota self-defense law."

I choose to believe lawyers who are versed in MN law, rather than someone from another state.

 

[les strat]

I just hate where the safety is on the mossy. How the hell are you supposed to use it while holding the pistol grip. Remington 870 has it in a much better location

With a pistol grip, it is harder to use than a traditional safety, but I have worked my Mossy to the point where it is like second nature. Plus, 5 in the tube, ready to rack, and no safety for storage is less dangerous than a revolver or SA without a safety. I have thought about putting a traditional stock on it for easier access, but am pretty efficient with it as is.

Now for hunting with a traditional stock, it's hard to beat the location of a Mossy safety.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

S&W Forum has Self Defense and 2nd Amendment sections for general discussion of these issues.

Closed.