Deadly force bill gaining traction in...

Deadly force bill gaining traction in Minnesota Legislature

There are 80 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Apr 28, 2011, titled Deadly force bill gaining traction in Minnesota Legislature. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

The top prosecutor in Dakota County doesn't like it. Neither do St. Paul police or Minnesota police organizations.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
wimp

Saint Martin, MN

#1 Apr 29, 2011
kill baby kill!
No spin zone

Forest Lake, MN

#2 Apr 29, 2011
If someone forcefully or stealthily kicks in my door they are good as dead LAW OR NOT! And there isn't a 12 person jury that would convict you of a thing. This is why lawyers don't like it, and cops sh1t they are NO help if someone breaks into your home. So there opinion doesn't even count.
Fed-up

Minneapolis, MN

#3 Apr 29, 2011
No matter what logic you spin on your right to defend your life the "anti's" will never be swayed. They see guns as being evil not the hand that holds them.

Being a C&C holder, I certainly would not fire unless I feared for my life or someone elses life. The illistration of the drunk entering a home is one thing but how about a well intent criminal looking for his next score? I think B&E records would prove there are more of this faction than the drunks that can't find the right door knob.

Pass this thing!!! It will be just like when they passed the original C&C law. Nothing happened. The streets were not overflowing with blood and there were no shootouts other than the "normal" ones involving Gang Violence. And trust me not one of those thugs have a Permit to Purchase or a C&C.
Red Ryder

Minneapolis, MN

#4 Apr 29, 2011
Felons learning hard lessons


http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2009/10/2...


Felonious behavior is becoming more dangerous, if two recent incidents are any indication.

During a home invasion on Oct. 5, one of the intruders was shot and killed by one of the occupants of the mobile home.

And an armed assailant is recovering from wounds after he was shot Oct. 13 by one of the people he was attempting to herd into a building housing law offices on East Capitol Avenue.

In the first case, the weapon was kept in the home, which always has been allowed to defend people and property.

In the second incident, the assailant was shot by someone who qualifies under the conceal and carry law.

Sheriff Greg White is a proponent of the conceal and carry law, passed by lawmakers in 2003 after Missouri voters rejected a similar law in 1999.

The law requires people to attain a standard of proficiency with weapons before they are permitted to carry a concealed gun. Proponents of the law believe it offers a greater sense of security and decreases crime by prompting felons to consider the consequences of armed confrontation.

We confess to harboring some reservations about the concealed carry law. Our fear was an increase in guns in public would result in more guns being displayed prematurely and/or more accidents.

White said recently:“All the fears over conceal and carry have never manifested.”

We concede the point.

Anecdotal evidence does not suggest an increase in accidents or unprovoked gunplay.

The evidence, however, does show people defending themselves from harm.

The message being sent to felons is don't bring a weapon to a crime unless you're prepared to accept the risk.

**********
Too bad the Star Tribune will never concede the point.
Hodar

Minneapolis, MN

#6 Apr 29, 2011
Might I suggest we do the following calculation?

Calculate the cost to the taxpayer for incarceration per year, for each Felon. Pay the 'Victim" who was forced to defend their life/property a tax-free amount equivalent to 2 years of what incarceration would have cost.

So, if the cost to house/feed/guard/health costs are $50,000/yr - the citizen who terminated ANY Felon (career or not) would be $100,000 tax-free.

Criminals are typically cowards. This would do three things. First, this would eliminate the career criminal element, Secondly this would reward the 'Victim', and thirdly this would discourage this element.
Up North2

United States

#7 Apr 29, 2011
The anti's don't seem to realize that if you kill or cause great bodily harm to an intruder with a baseball bat you are still using deadly force.
This bill doesn't create an obligation to shoot, only the option to do so.

“Charity is a Personal Choice”

Since: Mar 08

Saint Paul, MN

#8 Apr 29, 2011
Fed-up wrote:
No matter what logic you spin on your right to defend your life the "anti's" will never be swayed. They see guns as being evil not the hand that holds them.
Being a C&C holder, I certainly would not fire unless I feared for my life or someone elses life. The illistration of the drunk entering a home is one thing but how about a well intent criminal looking for his next score? I think B&E records would prove there are more of this faction than the drunks that can't find the right door knob.
Pass this thing!!! It will be just like when they passed the original C&C law. Nothing happened. The streets were not overflowing with blood and there were no shootouts other than the "normal" ones involving Gang Violence. And trust me not one of those thugs have a Permit to Purchase or a C&C.
AS a fellow C/C permit holder, I could not agree more.

I am truely perplexed as to why law enforcement and DAs don't support this law. People are tired of bening victims. Police can't be everywhere...The old saying, "When seconds count the ploice are minutes away."

This bill is designed to protect the rights of victims and intended victims. Why is that so wrong? Why can't we trust the judgement of the law abiding, taxpaying public? What is so wrong about protecting yourself, loved ones and property?

It is time for DA Backstrom to be removed from office. He should stand FOR this law not against it. Clearly, he does not have the safety of law abiding citizens as his first priority.

“Get RIGHT or be left”

Since: Nov 07

www.dreamindemon.com

#9 Apr 29, 2011
GB Fan wrote:
<quoted text>AS a fellow C/C permit holder, I could not agree more.
I am truely perplexed as to why law enforcement and DAs don't support this law. People are tired of bening victims. Police can't be everywhere...The old saying, "When seconds count the ploice are minutes away."
This bill is designed to protect the rights of victims and intended victims. Why is that so wrong? Why can't we trust the judgement of the law abiding, taxpaying public? What is so wrong about protecting yourself, loved ones and property?
It is time for DA Backstrom to be removed from office. He should stand FOR this law not against it. Clearly, he does not have the safety of law abiding citizens as his first priority.
GB Fan...YOU know what is wrong with this bill!

It not only allows citizens to protect themselves from violent criminals (when trouble is seconds away, the police are only minutes away)....

BUT it also removes the right of GOVERNMENT to confiscate firearms and ammunition from US, specifically, Minnesota Citizenry under emergency situations.

The DFL, the police (who everyone knows should be the ONLY ones armed, ever) and those that support controlling, curtailing and even eliminating private firearm ownership are having a FIT right now!

Good thing we have the government here to protect us!

It is my contention that anyone that opposes gun ownership should put a sign in their front yard to that effect so that everyone knows what the persons living at that address believe!
mtbikr

Monroe, LA

#10 Apr 29, 2011
Fed-up wrote:
No matter what logic you spin on your right to defend your life the "anti's" will never be swayed. They see guns as being evil not the hand that holds them.
Being a C&C holder, I certainly would not fire unless I feared for my life or someone elses life. The illistration of the drunk entering a home is one thing but how about a well intent criminal looking for his next score? I think B&E records would prove there are more of this faction than the drunks that can't find the right door knob.
Pass this thing!!! It will be just like when they passed the original C&C law. Nothing happened. The streets were not overflowing with blood and there were no shootouts other than the "normal" ones involving Gang Violence. And trust me not one of those thugs have a Permit to Purchase or a C&C.
The anti-gun crowd will always resort to the isolated incidents os mistakes to bolster their anti-gun arguments, completely ignoring the all too common incidents of home invasion including those that result in physical and sexual assaults, car jackings, street muggings. This would be another bill I would like to see them ballot as a Constitutional ammendment instead of letting it get to Mark to veto.
mtbikr

Monroe, LA

#11 Apr 29, 2011
Hodar wrote:
Might I suggest we do the following calculation?
Calculate the cost to the taxpayer for incarceration per year, for each Felon. Pay the 'Victim" who was forced to defend their life/property a tax-free amount equivalent to 2 years of what incarceration would have cost.
So, if the cost to house/feed/guard/health costs are $50,000/yr - the citizen who terminated ANY Felon (career or not) would be $100,000 tax-free.
Criminals are typically cowards. This would do three things. First, this would eliminate the career criminal element, Secondly this would reward the 'Victim', and thirdly this would discourage this element.
Hodar, have you ever considered running for an office of public service? If so, let me be the first to volunteer for your campaign.
Highland Park Resident

Minneapolis, MN

#12 Apr 29, 2011
"The issue becomes what was in the mind of the person using deadly force rather than how a reasonable person would have reacted under the same circumstances,'' Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom said

Does anyone else have issue with the what Mr. Backstrom said here? He's saying that anyone that uses deadly force to protect their family, themselves, and their property is unreasonable.

If you live in Dakota county, I'd start demanding Mr. Backstrom is relinquished of his job. A person that doesn't believe if a law abiding citizen's right to protect their family has no right prosecuting criminals.
mtbikr

Monroe, LA

#13 Apr 29, 2011
Highland Park Resident wrote:
"The issue becomes what was in the mind of the person using deadly force rather than how a reasonable person would have reacted under the same circumstances,'' Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom said
Does anyone else have issue with the what Mr. Backstrom said here? He's saying that anyone that uses deadly force to protect their family, themselves, and their property is unreasonable.
If you live in Dakota county, I'd start demanding Mr. Backstrom is relinquished of his job. A person that doesn't believe if a law abiding citizen's right to protect their family has no right prosecuting criminals.
Yes, I caught that too. Made me want to call his office and give them a piece of my mind.
Pine Buffalo

Olympia, WA

#14 Apr 29, 2011
Here in Washington State we've had such a Castle Doctrine law for decades. Under our law, the duty to retreat is also removed in public places, so muggers, like burglars, are also obliged to worry about armed victims. The only effects of it have been:

Criminals considering home intrusions or muggings have to think very hard about the consequences of encountering an armed victim.

Police investigations of the few intrusions we've had that resulted in the intruder's death are easier since the intruder, merely be being in the house, was eligible for shooting.

If a prosecutor charges the shooter in such cases, and the shooter claims self-defense at trial and is acquitted, the prosecutor pays for the shooter's defense. If your proposed law lacks that feature it would be good to add it.
Rob

United States

#15 Apr 29, 2011
Sounds like the gene pool is about to get a little chlorine. This should be called the Will Smith law: "Don't start nuttin', won't be nuttin'." It's that simple.

This will reduce the incidence of property crime and violent crime, and may even make a dent in the habits of chronic alcoholics. If you're gonna drink in Minnesota, take a Designated Doorknob Finder with you.

“Charity is a Personal Choice”

Since: Mar 08

Saint Paul, MN

#16 Apr 29, 2011
Jeff T in MPLS wrote:
<quoted text>
GB Fan...YOU know what is wrong with this bill!
It not only allows citizens to protect themselves from violent criminals (when trouble is seconds away, the police are only minutes away)....
BUT it also removes the right of GOVERNMENT to confiscate firearms and ammunition from US, specifically, Minnesota Citizenry under emergency situations.
The DFL, the police (who everyone knows should be the ONLY ones armed, ever) and those that support controlling, curtailing and even eliminating private firearm ownership are having a FIT right now!
Good thing we have the government here to protect us!
It is my contention that anyone that opposes gun ownership should put a sign in their front yard to that effect so that everyone knows what the persons living at that address believe!
Excellent point! I gotta start reading a lot closer...:-)

What defines an emergency?

“I am always right.”

Since: Oct 09

Former MN Taxpayer

#17 Apr 29, 2011
Just a simple clarification of what should have been in the initial law.

Nothing to see here folks.
supporter

Saint Paul, MN

#18 Apr 29, 2011
I'm an east metro cop and I totally support this bill. You simply don't have time to judge a another's motives when they break into your home. A man's home is his castle, period. The message will be received loud and clear by metro thugs when the first one is shot and killed during a burglary. Finally some common sense legislation.
tom

Hayfield, MN

#19 Apr 29, 2011
Break in my house and you are dead!!!! Come on my yard and even act like your gonna attack and your dead.....You attack me on the street or anywhere in public and you will be at very least wounded,more then likely dead.
Jacques Marteaux

Saint Paul, MN

#20 Apr 29, 2011
This is a good way to get rid of that no good brother-in-law. Invite him to stop by after the bar closes and cap him when he walks into the house. Make sure the house is dark, though.
Gee

Buffalo, MN

#21 Apr 29, 2011
So I watched this last night and Dakota County spinless chit head Backstrom says... are we really going to shoot a teenage kid for breaking into a garage to steal a bike? Are you kidding me, so theft I guess is not a big deal unless it involves him. Everytime this chit head gets on tv I was to throw it. You flippin libs who think everyone can be reformed, how is this working for you? MN has the highest return rate of prison inmates because they feel everyone can be reformed. Every the crackheads that spend 20 mins in jail think they are institualized for the rest of their lives because they had to spend time in jail. Start shooting this effn idiots and the genepool problems will be solved. People will eventually get the hint, hell if I do this, this might happen and the may include death.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Good Thunder Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Tanning Jun '17 Drift45 1
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Minnesota ... (Oct '10) Jan '14 DutchQ 11
News Minnesota House votes to halt seat-belt stops (May '11) May '11 Arch on larch 51
News Cornish's self-defense bill under fire (May '11) May '11 Jabber 3
News Sheriffs denounce bill to put prisoners in loca... (Apr '11) Apr '11 Ohio Wrangler 1
News Ruben Rosario: New DNA technique: Does it fight... (Mar '11) Mar '11 gitmo 23
News Minnesota bill doubles prison time for some sex... (Mar '11) Mar '11 nfk 6

Good Thunder Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Good Thunder Mortgages