Quote:
Originally posted by maximusveritas
If you are in physical danger, you have every right to use whatever force neccessary to protect yourself, including lethal force. When it comes to property, you have the right to use the neccessary force in order to get back the property or protect it, but lethal force would be totally unneccesary.
|
In Minnesota, the use of a firearm in defense is considered "lethal force" regardless of whether or not death results from the shot.
Quote:
Originally posted by maximusveritas
Also, I think you are misinterpretting the Minnesota law. It certainly wouldn't be illegal to pursue the criminal. And no one would bring charges if you just roughed the guy up a bit or threathened him with your gun. Its only when you start shooting indiscriminately that you're in trouble.
|
Minnesota has something commonly referred to as a "duty to flee law" which makes it illegal to pursue a criminal. On top of that, it is currently illegal to use "lethal force" unless a criminal is currently in the act of committing a felony. If said criminal is running away (or driving a truck full of all of your belongings away), you are NOT able to give chase, fire upon them, or attempt to stop them in any way.
How do these laws help the victims of crime? By tying them up in the legal system and draining their life's savings in order to pay for a lawyer, while a seasoned criminal gets three more months in jail?
I think we would have many less problems if we gave the property owner the benefit of the doubt in determining if force/lethal force is necessary. Criminals should never be able to sue someone that they unsuccessfully robbed -- that's just ridiculous.