A weak white lesbian judge of course.
Minnesota high court sets self-defense precedent in machete case: retreat before brandishing weapon
https://www.startribune.com/minnesot...apon/600508775
31 July 2024
The court ruled that you cannot brandish a deadly weapon even when under attack if you can reasonably retreat. A dissenting opinion called it unprecedented in American history.
In a split decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that even when a person is threatened or under attack they can’t brandish a deadly weapon if it is “reasonably possible to retreat.”
A dissent called the ruling unprecedented in American judicial history.
The case stemmed from a knife and machete altercation in downtown Minneapolis, zeroing in on the specific question of whether a person can claim self-defense when they are charged with felony second-degree assault–fear with a dangerous weapon. Under Minnesota law, a person commits assault–fear by acting with the “intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death.”
Self-defense typically involves a defendant claiming the reason they pulled out a deadly weapon was because they felt threatened by another person.
On a June night in 2021, Earley Romero Blevins of Minneapolis got into an altercation with a man and woman he knew on the light-rail platform near U.S. Bank Stadium. Words were exchanged between Blevins and the woman and an argument ensued. The other man had a knife and told Blevins to come into the platform shelter away from surveillance cameras so he could “slice Blevins’ throat.”
Blevins then pulled a machete out of his waistband and moved toward the man and woman while holding the machete. Another man attempted to intervene and Blevins began yelling and swinging the machete at them for about one minute, causing them to retreat.
The majority opinion in the 4-2 split decision was written by Justice Margaret Chutich. She wrote that longstanding Minnesota law says that a person needs to retreat when reasonably possible, even when facing bodily harm. The idea that they can stand their ground, escalate the situation, as Blevins argued, and brandish a deadly weapon “in the uncertain hope that it will cause the initial aggressor to back down — is unsound.”
Chutich added that the court views this as a “narrow” extension of the already established duty to retreat when possible. It also strictly is limited to second-degree assault–fear with a dangerous weapon, and does not include cases without a dangerous weapon.
In a dissent, Justice Paul Thissen took to task the idea that the decision stuck to legal precedent or was narrow.
“This new rule is not only unprecedented in this state — as far as I am aware, the rule has never been adopted anywhere in the United States,” Thissen wrote. “Until now, the collective wisdom of judges nationwide over hundreds of years has never imposed a duty to retreat before making threats to deter an aggressor.”
He added that Minnesota’s self-defense statue asserts that reasonable force may be used against another to resist an offense against that person. Thissen’s dissent argued that Blevins conviction should be reversed and a new trial should be held to determine if Blevins’ threatening behavior was reasonable.
Justice Karl Procaccini joined Thissen in his dissent, while Justice Sarah Hennesy didn’t participate. Signing on to the majority were Chief Justice Natalie Hudson and Justices Anne McKeig and Gordon Moore. Wednesday was Chutich’s final day on the court; Justice Theodora Gaďtas starts her term Thursday.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us