https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-high-court-sets-self-defense-precedent-in-machete-case-retreat-before-brandishing-weapon/600508775

The supreme court of Minnesota has set a new precedent for the most restrictive law on self-defense in the nation and perhaps world
The question is whether a man can brandish a weapon when he's under attack and in fear for his life in an attempt to dissuade his attacker with the threat. IE, displaying a firearm when someone tries to mug you.

In this case MN v Blevins, Blevins was accosted on the light rail in downtown Minneapolis by a couple he had an argument with. The man pulled out a knife and threatened to "slice Blevin's throat". Blevins pulled a machete out of his waistband and yelled and swung towards them without hitting anyone for a minute until they retreated. Blevins was charged and convicted of felony second-degree assault with fear of a dangerous weapon for threatening them, even though they had attacked him first.

In Minnesota until now, there has been a precedent against the stand-your-ground law of other states, with a required 'duty to retreat' before you can use deadly force to save your own life. IE, if someone threatens you in public, but you could simply walk away without being chased and avoid a confrontation or endangering bystanders, you can't pull out a gun and shoot the person threatening you or you'd be charged with murder. The state requires you to attempt to retreat if you can, first. But this only applied to actually using force not threats of force. No state in the nation has ever adopted a standard saying you can't threaten someone who is threatening you, in an attempt to save your own life. Thanks to this ruling, even producing and displaying a weapon in a threatening manner is now a felony even if its solely done to protect yourself from an attacker, if you could have retreated.

As explained:

“Let’s say you have a permit to carry and you have a firearm, somebody pulls out a knife and you draw your firearm out instinctively to respond to that threat,” Doar hypothesized. “Under old rules, you’re completely fine. Under the new rules you have to first look for a means of retreat before even drawing that firearm out. That is just inconceivable from a mere human reaction standpoint.”

What kind of moron carries a machete around with them?

Migrant gangs in the UK

functionally what makes it worse than carrying a pistol?
less capable as a weapon, but more capable as a tool

Self defenders apparently.

If someone pulls out a knife and you can run away/retreat. You should do that.
Immediately head-shotting at the first inclination that you feel threatened is an unnecessary escalation.

I don't think its helpful to normalise zero to one hundred executing anyone you deem a threat and not expecting repercussion.

This isn't a case about shooting at someone because you feel threatened. In Minnesota you always had a duty to retreat before using lethal force. This precedent now says you cannot make a threat to save your own life. It explicitly says you cannot brandish a weapon to fend off someone already attacking you, if you don't try to retreat first. The difference between trying to threaten someone with a weapon and actually shooting them is pretty meaningful both in common sense and law.

So if you have a legally carried firearm and a couple muggers on the street confront you with knives drawn, you can't pull out your gun and point it at them and tell them to back off. You just committed a felony that will land you in prison for years. The guys with the knives did too, except this is minneapolis so they'll get a court date they skips, have it automatically plead down to misdemeanor in absentia, never serve a day in jail and have the prior completely ignored on their next felony whereas you'll get a 25 year prison term as they charge you with two counts felony second degree assault with a deadly weapon with a bias multiplier because of skin colors

I think your finessing the scenarios to suit your narrative.
The point remains if you have an opportunity to retreat, you should do so before pulling out a firearm to threaten.

Surely the nuance is in the short amount of time things can take place. Do you actually see courts ruling against people that were being mugged, without having an opportunity to retreat?

This is Minnesota, I've seen courts rule against people who were provably in fear for their own lives and retreating from a mob chasing them, just because they dared to exercise their right to political assembly. The balance of how far a court will wiggle within precedent is already demented.

Do you really think that if someone pulls out a knife and says he's gonna slice your throat open, and you pull out a gun and tell him to back off, that you should go to prison for 10 years because you tried to defuse the situation and save the lives of everyone involved by a threat of force, instead of either gambling that you could run faster than him and forfeiting your ability to draw on him reliably, or just shooting him?
In most of America you can just shoot him. In Minnesota you can go to prison for hurting his feelings

No I don't. I'm questioning if you believe or have evidence that a court would prosecute someone in that case.
You've also gone from someone pulling a knife to mug someone, to pulling a knife and saying they intend to slice their throat open; Kind of two scenarios here.

I highly doubt any conviction would be upheld if someone drew their weapon against someone yelling "I'm going to slice your throat open"; Especially as their use of "slice" as opposed to "slit" would warrant a summary execution on the spot anyway.

I suppose the debate is where is the line between legally defending ones self and being empowered to draw a lethal weapon on anyone or anything that an individual feels threatening.


This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Aug 1 2024 02:19am