Gov. Tim Walz has never appeared burdened by legal niceties or accuracy in pushing his agenda, including his anti-free speech policies. However, his recent effort to block an effort to enact a “no duty to retreat” rule for self-defense hit a new low. Walz completely misrepresented not only the underlying bill, HF 13, but ignored the common law on self-defense.
Gun control groups opposed the bill that would have clarified the rule that citizens did not have a duty to retreat in the use of self-defense. Walz immediately fell in line and helped defeat the bill by a single vote — and a gross misrepresentation.
The bill would have aligned the Minnesota self-defense law with the common law, which did not require a retreat when it is possible before the use of force. The new law would have simply added the following line:
“(b) An actor may use reasonable force under the circumstances described in paragraph (a), clause (3), regardless of whether a reasonable possibility of retreat to avoid the danger exists.”
Walz told the media that the new language would allow citizens to “shoot somebody for taking your parking space.”
There is nothing in the law that would support such a claim. The law states in pertinent part that citizens can use reasonable force:
“(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or
(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property; or
(5) when used by any person to prevent the escape, or to retake following the escape, of a person lawfully held on a charge or conviction of a crime…”
How is claiming a parking space an “offense” or a denial of “real or personal property”?
It is a knowingly baseless and sensational claim by Walz.
The controversy highlights rivaling doctrines that we often discuss in Torts. Many states now have “Castle doctrine” laws, which allow people to use lethal force in defense of their homes. Called “Make My Day” laws in some states, there are also “Make My Day Better” laws allowing people to use lethal force in defense of other property like cars. There are also laws like “Stand Your Ground” discussed in such well-known cases as the trial of George Zimmerman (though it was ultimately not used in favor of a conventional self-defense claim).
The common law does not impose a duty to retreat. It preexisted the SYG law in most states. If it didn’t, hundreds of thousands of cases of self-defense would have had different results after people defended themselves rather than flee. Indeed, this is a point that I often made in opposing these laws: you already have the right to defend yourself and not to retreat.
In Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550, 562 (1895), the Supreme Court held that
“The weight of modern authority, in our judgment, establishes the doctrine that when a person, being without fault, and in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self-defense, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable.”
That does not mean that the state cannot preempt common law by requiring retreat when available. Other states have imposed such a requirement. However, Walz has again shown his signature tendency to exaggerate or misrepresent the law when it serves political ends.
The rule on “no duty to retreat” may warrant debate, but does not warrant false claims. Ironically, Walz has a reputation as an anti-free speech figure, including censorship of things that he deems disinformation. This is disinformation, but I would not seek to censor him for spreading it. It is enough to point out the absurdity of the claim and to allow free speech to protect against bad speech.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.
In the name of a Free America, Dodging bullets! Not that it was even close…
As Paul Harvey used to say, “ now you know the rest of the story!”
*. We’ve seen this idea implemented in the nation of California recently. No duty to retreat was seen in the ICE raid as the people working the weed field did not retreat and threw rocks at ICE until ICE left. California is a sanctuary nation and the people had a right to be there growing legal weed in the California.
Again from a woman council member calling upon the cholo to defend their territory in the nation of California.
Again another council member called for ICE to warn them aka a general Miranda.
Again mayor Bass issuing her edicts. It’s clear the nation of California does not recognize federal supremacy and what more can they say other than we are defending our castle and have no duty to retreat?
How dense are you is the remaining question.
“Many states now have “Castle doctrine” laws, which allow people to use lethal force in defense of their homes. Called “Make My Day” laws in some states,”
They should call the Law the,…. ‘Are you feelin’ Lucky ,Punk ?” Law.
There are only 3 kinds of people that become cops. Those just looking for a job, those that want to be a hero and save the world and those who desire to carry a gun and use it. Imagine living during the time without cameras. I’ve watched all the films; Chauvin was the latter, you can see it in his eyes. The type of person who when there aren’t any cameras around, he would curve stomp you in a second and celebrate it. That being said, St. Floyd deserved a curb stomping. [Look at that; deserved is a censored word] Minnesotans are probably closest to Marxist ideology at water break.
2 out of 3 ain’t bad.
Wow. If only you were in charge of screening candidates…
Maybe Tim was menstruating and was just having a bad week.
I’m too old to run. Sorry, I’ll be pulling the trigger.
Makes one wonder why would the dems want this revoked….🤔
Tim Walz is a malevolent figure.
My law firm, Smith & Wesson PLC say just to ignore the bedwetters in Minnesota, eh?
Outstate Minnesota is Red. We should seal off all major population centers in Minnesota, and the only people who are allowed to leave are those who voted Pub in the last election. Surround major population centers with a free fire zone 300 yards wide, and shoot anything that moves.
You had better seal off the northeast arrowhead part of the state as well!
BOTTOM LINE IS THE BAFOON-TIMMY IS FROM NEBRESKA AND WHAT HE BRINGS TO THE TABLE AIN’T NO DIFFERENT THEN THE LIBTURD MORONS !!
Duty to retreat laws.
As far as I’m concerned; they can take their “duty“ to retreat laws and shove them straight up their illogical morally bankrupt a**. Sure people can choose to take the opportunity to flee a life threatening situation if by some random chance it exists, but to legally mandate it is absurdly immoral! In most, if not all, life or death situations where seconds count and it’s reasonably and legally justified to shoot someone because there is a immediate threat of imminent and extreme violence or death from an assailant against you or others, the simple act of trying to retreat gives that assailant additional opportunities to carry out their impending violence. If a potential victim(s) of an immediate threat of imminent and extreme violence or death from an assailant is concentrating on following the “duty to retreat” law then they are not properly focused on stopping the active threat in the moment.
Seriously, think about it; this is a round about way to prosecute every person that shoots someone regardless of the circumstances, all the prosecutor has to do is claim that the shooter didn’t follow the “duty to retreat” law. It makes those protecting themselves with a firearm instantly guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of anti-gun advocates. In my opinion, duty to retreat laws are not only morally bankrupt but they are anti unalienable individual human rights.
The Declaration of Independence specifically states…
Duty to retreat violates the unalienable Right to life specifically stated in the Declaration of Independence by requiring an individual to retreat when in an extreme violence or life threatening situation which will very likely cause their own immediate death or serious injury.
Duty to retreat; HE** NO!
The left can’t seem to function unless they have their thumb on the scale. For Walz, lying is just part of the job.
O T – I notice that Zelenskyy is now spelling his name with two y”s. Does anyyone know whyy?
wrong thread buddy.
I know its off topic, but i can’t seem to find where to ask this question.
What does Jonathon think of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYtJm0ePPjw
I can not speak for Prof. Turley and I barely got a minute into the video before I could not listen to this garbage anymore
These two are NUTS.
DEI is racism. It violates the civil rights act. Universities may not engage in racism, they may not use federal funds to teach people to be racist.
Yes DOJ can investigation criminal misuse of federal funds.
Yes DOJ can refuse to hire people based on the curicula of the schools they attended.
These two are off their rocker.
Personally I think the aspects of the Civil rights act that apply to private actors – like colleges are wrong and unconstitutional.
But they are still the law, and the DOJ is seeking to enforce the law.
I would fully support the right of Colleges and universities to teach whatever they want – including racism under any name – so long as the govenrment were not funding them. The answer is NOT to attempt to stop the univerdity from doing something that is wrong.
It is to quit government funding ALL universities – so they may do and teach whatever they want.
But even that would not preclude DOJ from refusing to hire graduates from left wing nut universites specifically because they are from left wing nut universities.
Government may not stop NAZI’s from marching. But is there ANYONE that wants to argue that the govenrment – or anyone else is rEQUIRED to hire NAZI’s ? The same applies to those teaching racism.
#74. Look sources of funding for colleges and you’ll find foreign money in large amounts. The middle east is funding the riots on campus. The US can fund medical research at colleges without funding DEI.
Keep foreign funding out of US colleges? The laundering game is huge.
#74. Walz has acquaintances and friends who would shoot people for a parking space. He’s pointing that out. Crazy people, immoral people shouldn’t have guns. International sales of weapons should stop. A man on death row chose to be shot and SC obliged?
Self defense is instinctual behavior. Wouldn’t it be heavenly if everyone in the world knew not to kill.
MSM is nothing but bunk now btw and you should run when outmatched.
The right to bear arms serves to remind both the good guys and the bad guys not to break down your door in case there is a surprise on the other side of that door. The good guys can get a warrant.
All of this is political gimmickry to keep as many avenues open as possible to charge a person for not choosing his best recourse at the hands of an assailant.
Me, an 80 year old frail man is suppose to judge the danger of a 20 year old punk with a weapon and give him the first move. I have no illusions. I will be well and truly fk’d.
Laws that discourage people from defending themselves encourage crime.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz executive order: Retreat in your own home and Minnesota will supply you with a free box of tampons to plug the bullet holes. To all the lawful gun owners please remember, it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by six. Fug Tim Walz fat old fugbutt loser.
#9. Walz, a self proclaimed weapons expert, once he figures out how to load a shotgun, and a war hero who gave his all on the brutal resort fronts of Florence and Venice, Italy, knows a thing or two about retreats.
Just look how his hero compatriots masterfully executed the art of the skedaddle out of Afghanistan.
I know he’s worked hard on the Underground Railroad, just ask Derek Chauvin. He got Railroaded without a doubt. President Trump should pardon him immediately.
Trump can only pardoned Derek Chauvin on his federal charges, not any of his state charges. Personally, I don’t really have an opinion on whether or not Trump should pardon Derek Chauvin on his federal charges. However, I can tell you that I think the State of Minnesota did overcharged Chauvin for the death of George Floyd. Do I think Derek Chauvin intended to kill George Floyd? No, I don’t. But I do think Chauvin’s actions exacerbated Floyd’s death.
There is an excellent documentary on youtube about the George Floyd incident that uses real body cam video as well as other sources covers the time before floyd was taken out of the back of the dcruiser – essentially at his own demand, and many many other aspects that are unreported.
To the extent that Floyd had any chance of surviving this – the most significant error was on the part of the Paramedics who took 20min to go 3 blocks – because they went to the wrong place initially.
Floyd was going to die from a massive drug overdose – it is near certain that he “ate his own stash” as well as that of the drug dealer that put him up to passing conterfeit 20’s and was arrested at the same time. This is NOT the first time Floyd “ate his stash” while in the back of a cruiser but before being searched. Floyd needed Narcan ASAP – and even that would not likely have been enough as he was well over the lethal limit for meth too.
Floyd’s death was unfortunate. But to the extent any police had any responsibility – it was because they arrested him and after arreest while in the back of the cruiser he consumed massive amounts of drugs to avoid being charged with PWID – i.e. being a drug dealer rather than user.
Do cops put people in the back of the cruiser without searching them for contraband first?
Yes. They will pat down the suspect for weapons and bulky stuff, but a lot of contraband is too well hidden. Cops will clean the back of the car beforehand, so they know what’s stashed belongs to the suspect.
I do not, watch the entire video and look what they did to the autopsy report. It was a leftist hit job for division of our population. Chauvin has been stabbed 22 times in State custody.
“But I do think Chauvin’s actions exacerbated Floyd’s death.”
Floyd’s death was the result of a lethal drug overdose combined with multiple preexisting conditions. Chauvin’s actions were not the cause of death, nor did they contribute to it. While Chauvin may not be a likable man, he was held responsible not for actual culpability, but because certain groups needed a martyr.
Oh Dannyboy…
I think George Floyd’s own actions exacerbated his death. A habitual drug addiction and an enlarged heart along with a lethal dose of fentanyl and resisting arrest are the combination what killed that moron. End of Story.
Derek Chauvin is the only victim of this crime story. It was just an excuse for the left radicals to burn and loot without consequences.
Floyd’s respiration was already suppressed by opioids. Chauvin is guilty for not knowing that.
Whether Chauvin knew or not is immaterial, no one knows but Chauvin, it doesn’t constitute a murder wrap…
The political hierarchy convicted him after they blew the Floyd death incident into some kind of a white police racial slant furor. They found it as a tool to ease their leftist and BLM idiots down so they wouldn’t continue to burn the city down and have mostly peaceful riots destroying peoples properties. Instead they should have released the National Guard with a shoot to kill order for anyone caught looting or burning.
#9. Walz, a self proclaimed weapons expert, once he figures out how to load a shotgun, and a war hero who gave his all on the brutal resort fronts of Florence and Venice, Italy, knows a thing or two about retreats.
Just look how his hero compatriots masterfully executed the art of the skedaddle out of Afghanistan.
every lawyer knows he lied
And few of them care.
the most fundimental issue is that we should not want subjective second guessing after the fact.
A Self defense claim REQUIRES that the other party initiated the use of deadly force.
If a defendant establishes that – we should not second guess them over whether retreat was an option.
I think it is wise for people to retreat when they can – EXCEPT where retreat increases the risk to themselves of others.
But we should not be converting good preferences into criminal law.
“A Self defense claim REQUIRES that the other party initiated the use of deadly force.”
A slight quibble. Self defense must include response to the credible THREAT of the use of deadly force, otherwise a great many, possibly most, cases of self defense could be susceptible to the second guessing you rightly condemn.
#74 Doesn’t it also consider property? Is the rule stand down, retreat while home is looted?
I think it also applies to an encounter on the street.
John, I agree completely. The defender needs the latitude to act wisely (which includes standing their ground). Retreat if possible. Every bullet is a lawsuit and possible collateral damage.
I pray I am never faced with having shoot or kill another human, but I would if they threaten the life of my family and there was no alternative.
So, if you fight off your car-thief, rapist, home-intruder, that is the crime?
“So, if you fight off your car-thief, rapist, home-intruder, that is the crime?”
With the probable exception of your rape example (assuming that is forcible), whether or not your defense itself is considered to be a crime will vary by jurisdiction, as Professor Turley alluded to in his column. A few blue states (e.g., the Peoples Republic of New Jersey) have a law that establishes the duty to retreat EVEN WITHIN ONE’S OWN DOMICILE DURING AN INVASION BY AN ARMED INTRUDER OR INTRUDERS. Many more states forbid use of a firearm to prevent property theft unless that theft is accompanied by a threat of violence against the property owner. Of course, a deceased criminal is in no position to dispute the account of a defender…