September 30, 2018, 03:08 PM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: September 30, 2018
Posts: 2
|
Use of force question?
Hi, this is my first post and i hope this is the right forum. Let me start out by saying i live downtown in a relatively small town, but the city center isnt small. I live on the 2nd floor of a building with businesses on the 1st. There is a popular bar that is always trouble but it has gotten a lot worse. A month ago someone was shot in the head and murdered right below me on the street. Last night i once again heard a lot of yelling down on the street i looked out the window to see 5 men attacking one man, just pounding his face and head. My first instinct was to grab a weapon and go help, but i stopped myself realizing id probably end up shooting someone because theyre drunk and try to attack me for intervening. I did the next best thing and called the police.
This is Minnesota law on use of force. 09.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE. § Subdivision 1.When authorized. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist: (1) when used by a public officer or one assisting a public officer under the public officer's direction: (a) in effecting a lawful arrest; or (b) in the execution of legal process; or (c) in enforcing an order of the court; or (d) in executing any other duty imposed upon the public officer by law; or (2) when used by a person not a public officer in arresting another in the cases and in the manner provided by law and delivering the other to an officer competent to receive the other into custody; or (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; or (6) when used by a parent, guardian, teacher, or other lawful custodian of a child or pupil, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain or correct such child or pupil; or (7) when used by a school employee or school bus driver, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain a child or pupil, or to prevent bodily harm or death to another; or (8) when used by a common carrier in expelling a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful requirement for the conduct of passengers and reasonable care is exercised with regard to the passenger's personal safety; or (9) when used to restrain a person with a mental illness or a person with a developmental disability from self-injury or injury to another or when used by one with authority to do so to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the person's control, conduct, or treatment; or (10) when used by a public or private institution providing custody or treatment against one lawfully committed to it to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the control, conduct, or treatment of the committed person. 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? 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? |
September 30, 2018, 04:05 PM | #2 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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? |
||
September 30, 2018, 04:07 PM | #3 |
Junior member
Join Date: July 11, 2018
Location: Baytown, TX
Posts: 220
|
This is a legal question and as such, should be asked to a lawyer. It wont be a defense to prosecution if you take what someone says here to court to defend your actions.
|
September 30, 2018, 07:11 PM | #4 |
Junior Member
Join Date: September 30, 2018
Posts: 2
|
I completely understand and do not expect to use this in anyway as i thankfully have no need, but i just wondered if i was reading section 3 correctly, i completely understand that by injecting myself into the situation, especially with a weapon that ill not be met by officers as a friend right away. Thanks
|
September 30, 2018, 08:05 PM | #5 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,820
|
Quote:
Reasonable force? what is that in your state? Does it include "deadly force" or not? For that answer, you need more research. It could be named in some other law, or part of the law, or not. Professional legal advice costs, but its the only reasonably sure way to know. Since deadly force is not directly mentioned in the law you quoted, it may not be spelled out in law, being left to the jury (or court) to define in each individual case. OR it might be spelled out in some other part of the law, and therefore not spelled out in the section you quoted. Also, consider the likely intention of the law you did quote, allowing "reasonable force" to be used and where. Clearly the majority of the examples in the law are meant to address force BELOW the level of deadly force. I would suggest that you consider the section about using force to defend others is meant for situations which are thrust upon you, and not situations where you have a choice of being involved, or not. There are situations where if you involve yourself (such as start the fight) you use of deadly force is NOT considered justified. The best answer will be from competent, qualified legal professionals licensed to practice law in your state. And the time to get that advice is BEFORE you are facing charges. Good Luck
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
September 30, 2018, 08:40 PM | #6 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
There's more to the law than what you cited. There's a follow-up section:
Quote:
|
|
September 30, 2018, 11:24 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 26, 2000
Location: Hastings, Nebrasksa - the Hear
Posts: 2,209
|
Roman Wade has the correct idea. Local laws - even in the 'locality' of a state - are usually complicated by other laws, which may be contradictory or not depending on the judge.
Find a local attorney who deals in penal code (crime) laws. Not an attorney who deals mostly with deeds and wills. He will likely have the best knowledge and guidance. All laws have a certain level of 'reasonability' underlying them. Likely, had you shot a couple of the attackers from your apartment window, you would seem much less reasonable than if you were on the sport and attempting to break up the conflict. Also, you would be much more reasonable if this was happening in a location where police support or service was fifteen minutes or more away. Talk with the attorney.
__________________
There ain't no free lunch, except Jesus. Archie Check out updated journal at http://oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com/ |
October 1, 2018, 04:25 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,498
|
Quote:
Whether or not police choose to arrest a person or even cite someone for a weapon offense doesn't matter if the DA can charge someone with a crime. And vice versa. DA can choose not to do anything even if police make the initial arrest. If the bar near your residence is really that bad, keep calling police about the things you see. Eventually they get tired of always going to a problem location and they could pressure the bar owners to do something to clean up their place of business. Alternatively your state or municipalitys alcohol control board could be contacted so they could be made aware of the problems as well. You might be surprised what a bar would be willing to do in order to keep their liquor license in good standing.
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard |
|
October 1, 2018, 11:04 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
This is not legal advice:
Generally, most states have laws that allow the defense of 3rd parties, and most states allow the use of deadly force to prevent death or grievous bodily injury. Some states have a "duty to retreat" that, in simplified terms, means one should not use force if they can reasonably avoid it. All that said, if you see multiple people severely beating another, that person is arguably in danger of death or severe injury. As such, it can be argued that force (including lethal) would be justified to end such an unprovoked attack (this is a sticking point in defense of others...sometimes you don't know who the innocent party is). As such, you would probably (but not definitely) be justified in using force to stop the attack. If no other option existed, you may be justified in using lethal force to stop the attack on the 3rd party. ***Of course, at the end of the day, you don't get to decide if what you did was legally justified. The police, DA, or jury gets to decide that! If you do use lethal force, there is a high probability that it will incur months of legal work and tens of thousands of dollars in expenses, even if you were justified. |
October 1, 2018, 11:22 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2017
Posts: 323
|
In my opinion the phone was the best tool at your disposal,
And prevented you from becoming part of a likely no win situation. |
October 24, 2018, 07:35 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
IMHO, if you aren't being directly threatened, and you go down and shoot a guy who's beating the crap out of another, but you aren't directly threatened..better have a good lawyer, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
October 24, 2018, 08:57 AM | #12 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
|
|
October 25, 2018, 11:21 PM | #13 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,652
|
Quote:
I'll say that OP would absolutely be justified in intervening in a 5 on 1 scenario where the 1 is in serious danger. The issue is, you have to use REASONABLE force. As 44amp said earlier... Quote:
More to OPs point. A "Reasonable person" would be very cautious about entering 5 to 1 odds. They would also be quicker to be justified in using deadly force if they did become involved in an altercation. At the end of the day, I encourage others who are willing to intervene to try and protect others. Do so wisely, with your eyes wide open, and PLEASE try some verbal judo before resorting to violence. Learn it. It works.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 Last edited by 5whiskey; October 25, 2018 at 11:27 PM. |
||
October 26, 2018, 08:20 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 22, 2008
Location: SW Washington state
Posts: 2,011
|
I do understand
Understand and appreciate that seeing someone being beaten and not acting to help or "save" that person goes against our own personal moral code. Not to mention the right thing to do as a good citizen.
If this is happening right below on the street outside your window? I think I would purchase a bullhorn and keep it handy near the window. Right next to my phone to call 911. There is something special about a command to break up the fight coming across loud and clear from a bullhorn. Not likely you could be charged with anything greater than disturbing the peace.
__________________
ricklin Freedom is not free |
October 27, 2018, 05:47 AM | #15 | |||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|||
October 27, 2018, 02:08 PM | #16 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Intervening in defense of another can raise complex complex issues, and what would constitute an appropriate response is highly dependent on (1) exactly what is happening and how it is happening; (2) how well you really understand what is going on; and (3) what your true skill level is.
Quote:
As far as you being protected, that again depends on exactly what is happening and how it is happening.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
October 27, 2018, 03:28 PM | #17 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
Best hypothetical: A person uses a firearm (lethal force) to defend himself under less than textbook conditions. He is charged and tried. The trial results in a mistrial because the jury can't decide whether or not a "hypothetical reasonable man" would have shot the alleged assailant under the same circumstances. If the jury can't agree on whether or not the use of force was reasonable, how can the standard be objective? But ... the prosecutor isn't happy, so he takes it to another trial. This time the jury votes to acquit. Meanwhile, down the hall in another trial, a defendant in a mirror image case is convicted. Objective standard? No. Last edited by Aguila Blanca; October 27, 2018 at 03:37 PM. |
|
October 28, 2018, 05:48 AM | #18 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Second, one of the recurring arguments that I routinely heard civil rights cases is whether we're talking about a "reasonable man" standard, or a "reasonable officer" standard. Both are objective tests, but the reasonable officer has a great deal more training and experience in the use of force and police matters than the reasonable man. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|||||||
October 29, 2018, 11:59 AM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,652
|
Quote:
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 |
|
October 29, 2018, 01:11 PM | #20 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
First, defining the standard as based objectively on the hypothetical reasonable person means that the personal, subjective, and quite possibly idiosyncratic assessment of the defendant is not controlling.
Second, since members of the jury must agree on the verdict, the question of whether the defendant's actions were reasonable at least requires that the members of the jury reach some consensus on the question. So the conclusion will not be based solely on the private, subjective, perhaps idiosyncratic assessment of any one juror.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
October 29, 2018, 10:23 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,652
|
Quote:
What is reasonable is inherently subjective. However I understand the "Objective reasonableness" standard and what it means. I also think it works quite well in the confines of appealate courts hearing cases based off of case law where the matter is fully understood. Not as much when applied by cops, prosecutors, State District Court Judges, and juries. IMO. In the end, the trier of facts are asked to determine what is "reasonable." Great care must be taken when your fate rests on what another person thinks is reasonable... or not reasonable.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 |
|
|
|