ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Key police chiefs and county prosecutors joined together on Thursday to urge Minnesota lawmakers to not pass legislation that would give people more freedom to use deadly force when protecting themselves.
The legislation creates the presumption that a person in their home or other dwelling who uses deadly force does so believing they are in danger of harm or death. The bill also removes the obligation for that person to retreat from such a situation. It's headed for a full Senate vote soon.
Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom said at a Capitol press conference that the bill shifts the standard to use deadly force from the current "reasonable person" standard to a more subjective one.
"Under this proposal, it would become what is in the person's mind as to whether they feel threatened," Backstrom said. "That is the controlling factor. Not what a reasonable person would have done when facing similar circumstances."
Champlin Police Chief Dave Kolb, representing the Minnesota State Chiefs of Police Association, said the legislation makes it easier to get away with murder.
"If a person on their own property murders another person, this bill creates a very large loophole for their defense," Kolb said.
Minneapolis Police Chief Tim Dolan said the bill would make serving warrants even more dangerous for officers. He held up a shield officers use when entering homes to illustrate how bullets can pass through it.
"I've lost officers at the front door on legal warrants," Dolan. "It is one of the most dangerous spots for law enforcement."
Bill sponsor Sen. Gretchen Hoffman, R-Vergas, said officers are already protected from shootings by law. She added that law enforcement reactions conflict with second amendment rights.
"It's a little over the top that they think they're the only people that can protect the public," Hoffman said. "In a free nation, people protect themselves."
Hoffman said she is confident the legislation will pass in the Senate with bipartisan support.
The House passed a companion bill last year with some language differences from the Senate bill. If passed in the Senate, the House will either concur with the Senate bill's language and send the bill to Gov. Mark Dayton, or send it to a Conference Committee for reworking and then back to the Senate floor.
Dayton said last week he wasn't sure if he'd sign or veto the bill, but mentioned that opposition from law enforcement officials would likely influence his decision.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
Comments (10)
Add commentopposed... of course !
Who'da thunk it ! of course the state and local law enforcement will oppose it. Our homes are not our castle, when confronted by an armed intruder we must retreat if possible. They would rather keep us like submissive sheep, dependent upon them to protect us. In many cases by the time the the cops get there, its too late, the crime has already been committed. Worried about serving no knock warrants ? right...how many times in the last few years have we read about someone being shot by police while serving one on the wrong address ? One of the more memorable ones was an elderly lady who armed herself thinking her house was being broken into, and shot to death by police serving a no knock drug warrant on the wrong address. I personally have never agreed with a no knock warrant simply for the above reason. My home is my castle, my refuge. Perhaps the people that do the home invasions, burglaries ect will think twice about it knowing that armed homeowners have been granted broader discretion in the use of deadly force to protect themselves and their "castle". I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
'Nuff Said
http://brainerddispatch.com/news/2012-02-20/1-killed-3-injured-blue-eart...
Of course you should be able
Of course you should be able to do anything possible to protect yourself in your own home. This includes the use of deadly force against uninvited, unannounced intruders. Too many people have been the victims of burglars or thieves to rely on the police to show up and protect them. Many have been murdered or raped because they were not armed, or were not ready, and could not reach police, and/or police not reach them in time.Your home is definitly your castle, and your right to protect yourself is inviolable.
muskyslayr
This home invasion was by the female victim's husband. So, more than being a random home intruder, this is a case of domestic violence. The water is a bit muddier now, isn't it?
Were they still married? Was this/is this house in the husband's name? Given the circumstances that this was not a stranger and it might have even been his house at one time, do you still think she should have pulled a gun and blasted the guy when he walked in? Would she even have been able to do it? I don't think we have enough information to make that judgement, so no, not 'nuff said.
Never pull a gun unless you are prepared to shoot to kill.
EELPOUT & UNION'S
Was out CO attorney there?
I am glad the dispatch finally covered this story.
This kind of thing is what law enforcement is worried about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye
If a police tactical team doesn't have all their ducks in a row, papers correct, address correct, etc. once in a while they make a mistake, and innocent people can get hurt. They are very interested in making sure it isn't THEM. Included is the assumption that if it's a sheep (citizen), its not as big a deal as if the cop gets hurt.
How about being more careful so nobody gets hurt?
who's house...
hmmm.. let me see, what does it matter who's name it was in or if he used to live there ! he came into the house with the intent to do bodily harm, I for one am not going to hesitate and ask these questions as the person advances t'wards me with a weapon in hand. As for your comment about never pull a weapon unless you are prepared to shoot to kill, I have carried a hand gun for alot of years, and i'm here to tell you, if i feel threatened enough to point my weapon at a person, i am prepared to shoot to kill. They will be the one that either leaves me no recourse, or exits the situation. I wont be shooting to wound if given no choice. If someone/anyone enters my home by any manner, and threatens my wife and children with a weapon, and us being left with no way to retreat, they will either surrender and prone out, or pay the consequences of their actions if they continue and attack. I will say it again, i'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
read the bill
If you had read the bill you would understand the concerns law enforcement officers have. There has not been one person prosecuted for defending themselves in their home under the current law. There is no need for this change- it is going to put people and most specifically cops at risk.
What about the concerns the rest of us have?
What about the concerns the rest of us have?
Hundreds of innocent people die every year during botched police actions. No-knock raids, using tactical teams to serve papers, etc.
Minnesota may be playing catch-up to other states regarding the amount of this thing that goes on...how about being in the forefront of states that put their feet down and say: "No more!".
Well said eyolf...
Well said eyolf... and to nofluff, police officers put themselves at risk serving this type of warrant no matter how the law reads, the real issue here is the no knock warrant. Is it that hard to simply wait a criminal out, say across or down the street, and arrest him as he goes to the store or tries to run ? They cant do that because they must have the tactical advantage of kicking the door in at 3 am and putting everyone involved at risk. Oh, and just how many cops have been prosecuted for shooting the people holding a firearm when the screwed up and kicked in the wrong door ? how many innocent civilians have been shot to death ? i hope this law passes, and perhaps lawmakers will have a look at the no knock warrant.