The Castle Doctrine

This piece of BS was printed on the front page of the Pioneer Press today. I find it lacking in substance and void of any real knowledge of Minnesota's gun laws. I called the news paper and said that I doubt that the writer, Rachel E. Stassen-Berger had talked to any one with the NRA. Here it is,

Is gun bill for safety or license to shoot?
Measure would extend spaces for justified use of deadly force
BY RACHEL E. STASSEN-BERGER
Pioneer Press

Gun-rights advocates say the measure grants law-abiding citizens the right to defend themselves against attackers without being forced to retreat.

Here in our great state, even in our own home, we are required to retreat if at all possible, before deadly force is justified. The main idea behind the "Castle Doctrine" is that you do not have to retreat when you are in your own home.

Opponents say it grants people the right to "shoot first, ask questions later" and could turn Minnesota into the Wild West.

We heard this BS about the Wild West back when the concealed carry law was first passed. All the anti-gun folks could be heard whining "Minnesota will be like the Wild West." It never happened.

Welcome to the latest debate about guns. The debate will land in Minnesota today as lawmakers introduce the measure known as the "Castle Doctrine."

The proposal gets its name from the adage that your home is your castle, and it stems from the idea that you should be able to protect your castle with force if necessary. According to the National Rifle Association, which is backing the measure, similar laws have passed in 15 states since 2005.

"This is a homeowner, property-owner defense bill. It's not radical," said Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, the proposal's sponsor in the House.

Cornish, a former police officer, calls the measure the "Stand Your Ground" legislation.

"I think it's easily defensible," he said.

Sen. Pat Pariseau, R-Farmington, is the measure's Senate sponsor.

If the measure becomes law, the state would replace the current law that defines justifiable homicide. Current law says it's justifiable to kill someone in your house if you fear the person will cause you "great bodily harm or death," or to prevent a felony.

This is what I'm talking about. The above paragraph could lead one to believe that it is permissible to shoot somebody who is trying to steal your car or burglarize the neighbors house.

Minnesota Statute 609.065 restricts the use of lethal force:

The intentional use of the life of another is not authorized 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.

The new law would extend the justification for the use of deadly force beyond the walls of your home to include your car and any other place you are legally allowed to be. It would allow you to "meet force with superior force" in your defense if you fear substantial bodily harm. Substantial bodily harm is a lesser, more temporary degree of force than great bodily harm.

Cornish says that's only right.

"When I was a cop, if someone would have threatened me and we were in a struggle and he or she broke my finger in the struggle, don't you think I would have pulled out the hardware? Why in the world wouldn't we afford a common citizen the same level of self-defense?" he said.

If I was walking down the street and got mugged, I think it is my right to pull out my pistol.

Opponents say the measure has nothing to do with self-defense.

"The law is about posturing. It was written by people who want to make it look like they are tough on criminals," said Zach Ragbourn, spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The Brady campaign has worked against similar laws in other states. According to Ragbourn's count, which is different from the NRA's, 10 states have passed the measures, which he calls fake self-defense laws.

"The system isn't broken," he said. "Good people aren't going to jail for defending their families, for fending off carjackers or muggers. They are not going to jail when someone breaks into their homes."

No, but even if your are in the right, you may very well be hauled to jail and face as much as ten grand in legal fees. I hope the "Castle Doctrine" Bill addresses this.

Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner says the proposal is a "solution in search of a problem."

"We've had no complaints about the law unfairly penalizing people who are simply protecting themselves," she said. "If we had, then I might understand why this is cropping up. But the fact that it is being raised now is just, to me, is a train of thought that let's bring the Wild, Wild West to the Midwest."

There's the "Wild West" argument again. We've heard this before and nothing happened.

An Anoka County shooting from late last year might influence the debate at the Capitol.

In November, Gerald Whaley, of Coon Rapids, shot and killed 17-year-old Tony Parks after Parks broke into his house at 11 p.m. Bryan Lindberg, of the Anoka County attorney's office, said prosecutors haven't decided whether to charge Whaley with a crime.

I certainly hope not! It's a shame that a seventeen year old boy got shot dead and I hope it is something that I never do, but the kid was an intruder and had it coming. It will be a travesty of justice if Mr Whaley is charged.

Those who say the new law isn't needed might see their argument bolstered if Whaley isn't charged. If he is, the proposal's backers could pick up support.

Right now, the legislative landscape might not be welcoming to the measure.

"It is a lead duck," said Bill Gillespie, executive director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association. The organization's board opposes the measure. "I don't even expect one hearing."

Sen. Linda Higgins, DFL-Minneapolis, who calls the proposal the "shoot-to-kill legislation," believes it wouldn't have the support to survive a Senate committee vote if it did get a hearing.

But Cornish said he's ready for the fight.

"It's going to be a real effort," he said. "We know we are in for a real battle here."

And, he said, he's ready to prove detractors wrong.

"It's not an encouragement to turn it into the Wild West or to give them an excuse to shoot people," he said. "It enables them to protect themselves legally and it puts the onus on the criminal and the state to prove they were wrong."