Castle Doctrine Vetoed in Minnesota

He essentially used law enforcement for cover on vetoing it. None of the law enforcement groups opposing this represent the rank and file, but as is often the case, the leaders of many of these groups are willing to coddle the politicians that feed them, and offer them cover for vetoing bills the people’s representatives have voted for.

6 thoughts on “Castle Doctrine Vetoed in Minnesota”

  1. Not sure how much more “protection” to law enforcement could have been given.

    5.17 Subd. 4. Presumptions. (a) An individual using deadly force is presumed to possess
    5.18 a reasonable belief that there exists an imminent threat of substantial bodily harm, great
    5.19 bodily harm, or death to the individual or another person, if the individual knows or
    5.20 has reason to know that:

    5.7 (b) The use of deadly force is not authorized under this section if the individual
    5.8 knows that the person against whom force is being used is a licensed peace officer from
    5.9 this state, another state, the United States, or any subordinate jurisdiction of the United
    5.10 States, who is acting lawfully.

    Bold emphasis is mine — “reasonable” people don’t shoot someone in their backyard absent an imminent threat, and if the uniformed guy breaking down my door shouts “POLICE”, “reasonable” people don’t respond with a hail of bullets, right?

    The “objections” of law enforcement were pure BS.

  2. When was the last time a citizen got away with shooting a cop anywhere? Even when they don’t announce/identify themselves and the citizen appeared to legitimately fear it was a criminal, I don’t think they’ve ever got away with it.

    1. Cato Institute has a nice report on the problems of SWAT teams. Sometimes people get away with shooting a police officer, sometimes not; in any case, the report rightly uses each and every example where someone died (whether police officer or not) as a reason we should do away with SWAT teams.

  3. What’s the possibility of a veto over-ride? That would show how out-of-touch the governor and law-enforcement “leadership” are with the public.

    Not to mention wipe the smug grin off a certain Brady Board member’s face. C’mon. You know it’s there with this news. ;)

    1. No idea myself, I don’t know much about politics there.

      Let her grin all she wants for now; the writing is on the wall. I think this will be passed soon enough, with or without the veto.

  4. Near zero possibility of a veto over-ride – doesn’t mean we’re not trying though. It was bipartisan legislation, just barely.

Comments are closed.