DO YOU HAVE TO ATTEMPT A RETREAT BEFORE DRAWING YOUR GUN?
Lots of buzz around the MN v. Blevins ruling at the Minnesota Supreme Court. Background here:
Minnesota high court sets self-defense precedent in machete case; retreat before brandishing a weapon
It’s important to first examine the case. One unfortunate fact about case law is the participants are usually not people whose behavior we want to emulate. The saying goes, “Bad cases make for bad case law.”
Take a moment to read the article. Blevins was challenged to a fight and accepted the challenge, drawing a weapon and advancing on the challenger. A third party attempted to intervene, and Blevins threatened them with the machete as well, attempting to slash them.
According to the opinion of the court, Blevins had a clear avenue of retreat when he threatened and attacked the parties involved. If this is the case, then he cannot claim self-defense.
However, the court also ruled that the mere presentation of the weapon (vs actually using it) cannot be justified when a retreat is practical. This is a new ruling and a bad one, but it might not be as bad as some are saying.
The conclusion many are making from this case is “Now you have to attempt to retreat before even drawing your gun.” We don’t think that’s exactly the case.
MN has had a “Duty to Retreat” around self-defense law for some time. We have long maintained in our Permit to Carry courses that you MUST evaluate the option of retreat prior to using force in self defense.
This ruling appears to uphold that requirement, except it adds the additional requirement that duty to retreat must be evaluated before presenting your weapon.
As we said before, evaluating a retreat, and attempting a retreat if practical, is a key element of self-defense in Minnesota. It’s important to understand a retreat could be considered impractical for a number of reasons:
– It would place you in greater danger
– It would force you to abandon others who are in danger
– There is no clear path of retreat
– While a path of retreat may exist, it would not be possible to evade your attacker
Additionally, you are not required to retreat in your own home. Keep in mind “Home” means the interior of your house.
We have long maintained that, if practical, a retreat should be attempted, not just because it’s required by law.
Getting involved in a defensive firearm incident (or any other self-defense use of force) carries with it a number of unpleasant consequences, such as the threat of getting hurt or killed, getting arrested and going to jail, being convicted of a crime and going to prison, crippling legal fees, civil liability, social stigmatization, loss of employment, and psychological trauma, to name a few. Anything you can do to avoid these is worth doing.
It is our opinion that if you draw and present a gun (or other weapon) under circumstances where retreat is not practical, you are not the aggressor, lesser force would be ineffective and you are reasonably afraid of being killed or suffering great bodily harm, you should still be able to claim self-defense.
Is this a good ruling? No way. Should we work to change it through legislative remedies? Absolutely! But it’s not as bad as some are saying.
FINE PRINT: We aren’t lawyers and don’t claim to be – but we have been teaching about the subject of deadly force for over 30 years, and have had experience consulting in self-defense cases. We would love to hear any qualified attorneys or legal professionals weigh in on our thoughts.
