View Single Post
Old September 30, 2018, 04:05 PM   #2
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,441
Originally Posted by Solovist
Section three seems to state that i have the right to use force when someone is being beat by multiple people. What im wondering is did i do the right thing in not going down? I was unaware of this law at the time, and even knowing it i feel it could have made the situation worse. Best case scenario im able to stop the fight without any issues, worst case, i have to shoot someone because they attack me(this implies i have followed Minnesota's deadly force law and made every attempt to retreat first). If i had gone down only intending to use force, but then deadly force is required, am i shielded by the law allowing me to assist someone?
Most states have such a law, and the general rule is that you should be shielded. However, the circumstances of each incident are different, and how the responding police might view and interpret what they find upon arrival would certainly play a role. As a non-lawyer, I would say you would almost certainly have to expect to be taken to the station for questioning. You might be arrested, Then it would become a question of whether or not a jury agrees that your armed intervention was in accordance with the law.

There's an old saying: "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."

Whether or not you did the right thing by calling for the cavalry rather than laying Lone Ranger is an entirely subjective valuation, and there is no correct answer.

TLDR; If i follow the law and use force to assist someone being assaulted, am i shielded by the law if i have to use deadly force BECAUSE I went down to help?
You never have to intervene, but the law you cited says you can, and it says you may use force to assist another person in resisting an [attack]. The law does not require that you be in the company of the person you choose to help. It says what it says, but the lawyers on this forum will no doubt remind us that what a law says must be viewed through the lens of what previous court decisions have determined that the law means. In other words, precedent, or common law.

By the way, the section you cited is for "AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE." Does Minnesota lump use of a firearm in with other uses of force, or should you be looking at/for a different section of statute that addresses the use of "deadly" force?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Page generated in 0.04400 seconds with 8 queries