Senate majority leader Amy Koch and the Public Safety Chair Limmer are trying to sink “stand your ground” bill. These pretend conservatives would prefer a legal requirement that lawful people confronted by criminals be second-guessed by police, required to run away rather than defend themselves even out of their own homes. If the newly elected delegates of the people cannot see to his constituents’ best interests, perhaps they should resign…unless their constituencies are made up of violent criminals and a few lawyers, the only winners from the status quo. Please call to express your displeasure with this development.
Why should you have to be legally compelled to run away from their own yard in case of danger?
I’m not an expert on Minnesota’s laws, but just from reading that, I wouldn’t call failure to pass it a major loss. That’s a very poorly-worded bill. The “immunity from prosecution” section is probably not even constitutional. It states that you cannot be criminally prosecuted if you forcibly defend yourself. Which is all well and good, but the reason to have a trial is to make that determination. At least, that’s the legal theory – we all know how rarely justice is done.
So, if the prosecutor believes that the evidence says you were the aggressor, and the newly-deceased was defending himself when you attacked him, but the jury disagrees and finds that he attacked you and you justifiably defended yourself, the prosecutor is now, ex post facto, guilty of a violation of that section?
I get what they’re trying to do, there, but the way they have it worded, it would just end up struck down by the courts.
Still should get a hearing, though. I find it disturbing that they can even refuse. Here in NH, they have to give each bill a hearing in committee and a vote on the floor. The most the committee can do is retain the bill for study, in which case it would absolutely have to be heard the second year of the two-year session (they can’t do that much, or that second year will be darn busy; we only pay them $100 per year, so they aren’t inclined to work too hard).
You need to change some wording in there. The caption should be something like; “Why should you have to be legally compelled to run away from your own yard…” And up above that;
“If the newly elected delegates of the people cannot see to their constituents’ best interests…”
Maybe better yet would be;
“If the newly elected delegates of the people do not seek to protect their constituents’ basic rights…”
Good message otherwise. Thanks.
Pingback: Minnesota elected officials (Koch and Limmer) plans to screw over those who elected them. « Freedom Is Just Another Word…
Due to the huge phone and email reaction from law-abiding Minnesotans who want the law on THEIR side, Senator Limmer and the leadership decided to find room for the bill on Friday’s agenda.
We did it, thanks to the loud voices of people like Oleg and Mitch and the many who called and emailed today.
The original bill, if it ever becomes law (maybe in 2015, if everything breaks right) was good policy, but while all the attention was on the (very important) “Stand Your Ground” bill, the committee neutered the Purchase Permit and Acceptance of Outstate Permits provisions.
Yuck. (The present pravda is that that will be fixed in conference committee. That’s, err, unlikely.)