Thank you very much for writing. I agree with you about the reasonableness of letting people defend themselves in their home/castle.
Below, I quote from an email I sent to someone else a couple of weeks ago:
I fully support letting people defend themselves and others from bodily harm or death.
I remain deeply concerned that the House author was not willing to make a critically needed change (that would not have affected the right to defend oneself).
Here's the problematic text:
Subd. 2. Circumstances when authorized. (a) The use of deadly force by an individual is justified under this section when the act is undertaken:
(1) to resist or prevent the commission of a felony in the individual's dwelling;
(2) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is an offense or attempted offense that imminently exposes the individual or another person to substantial bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death; or
(3) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is the commission or imminent commission of a forcible felony.
I support (2) and (3), for they recognize a person's right to self-protection and protection of others from physical danger, as you describe in your message.
There's no reason to include (1) as written. As I told Representative Cornish, it's too broad because it includes all felonies (not just those that involve physical danger or force).
The effect of (1) would be to potentially protect people who shoot someone in their home who fails to pay child support, who is committing fraud or other property crimes, and other felonies. Under the law, someone offering to bribe a public official in his/her home could be included.
I brought this concern to Representative Cornish. It was easy to fix---limit to forcible felonies in the home (see #3). I explained that defense attorneys could now take advantage of this provision to 'protect' defendants who we don't mean to include in this protection---the bill *should* protect people in their homes who reasonably fear physical danger or death (not failure to pay child support or other 'nondangerous' felonies).
I remain unclear on why the bill was not fixed on this point.
