Last week, the Minnesota state Supreme Court established an unprecedented ruling that states that an individual who is threatened or under attack can’t brandish a deadly weapon if it is “reasonably possible to retreat,” in a split decision ruling by the Court.
The ruling, according to the Star Tribune, stems from an incident that occurred in 2021 when Earley Romero Blevins of Minneapolis was involved in a skirmish with a man and woman he knew on a light-rail platform near U.S. Bank Stadium. Eventually, an argument between Blevins and the woman occurred, and the other man who had a knife told Blevins to step into the platform cover away from the security cameras so he could “slice Blevins’ throat.”
Feeling threatened, Blevins quickly pulled a machete out of his waistband and moved towards the two. Another man tried to intervene but Blevins continued to wave the machete around for roughly a minute before the pair retreated.
The Supreme Court voted 4-2 with Justice Margaret Chutich writing for the majority opinion. She claimed that longstanding Minnesota law says a person needs to retreat ‘when reasonably possible, even when facing bodily harm.’ Chutich says for a person to attempt to stand their ground would escalate the situation, and drawing a deadly weapon in defense “in the uncertain hope that it will cause the initial aggressor to back down — is unsound,” she wrote.
‘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,’ Star Tribune noted.
Justice Paul Thissen wrote for himself and the other dissenting Justice, warning about the dangerous precedent it sets.
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. 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.
Thissen wrote.
‘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,’ the local paper added.
Even though it was already established since 1997 that retreat should be the default option before a situation escalates into drawing deadly weapons, Rob Doar, vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, asserts that this latest ruling means “you can’t even present a weapon before utilizing any retreat options.”
Let’s say you have a permit to carry and you have a firearm, somebody pulls out a knife and you draw your firearm out instinctively to respond to that threat. Under old rules, you’re completely fine. Under the new rules you have to first look for a means of retreat before even drawing that firearm out. That is just inconceivable from a mere human reaction standpoint.
Duty to retreat is always subjective. That’s how the courts have traditionally treated it. Did it have to be the firearm? Was there anything else prior to use of deadly force? That’s where the problem arises with this: Now you have to run that calculus before even deciding to draw your firearm.
Doar explained.
Read more details about the ruling here.
AUTHOR COMMENTARY
This reminds me of the story we looked at in March when a Police Chief in Toronto, Canada, told residents to leave their key fabs at the front door under the rug so when criminals and robbers come to steal their cars they can do it more easily rather than endanger lives. This Minnesota case has a similar vibe to it.
These liberals are so stupid and brainless. In order to deescalate a situation that may get physical or deadly, drawing a weapon is a great deterrent as it should be, but not in clown town Minnesota. Land of lakes? More like the land of thieves and cowards.
This, for obvious reasons, will result in more serious injuries, burglaries, vandalisms, thefts, and murders; and it will perhaps set a precedent for other states to adopt as well. It’s so absurd it makes you wonder if these people WANT violence on purpose…
Jesus Christ himself told his disciples to buy a sword for self-defense. You do what you have to do to defend yourself and especially loved ones, and let the Lord handle the rest should it come to that…
Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. [38] And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).
The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.
Escape and evade is always the best.
But in fear of life and if near and dear in danger.
There must be a draw of arms and action to stop threat.
Escape and evade? Are you kidding me? If someone comes at me to rape or kill me, rest assured I’ll do everything within my power to immediately blow their brains out.
If you could evade something I think it best. Dont get punished in court for murder or something. But yeah. Got a Gun? Use it by all means. All country dont have Guns.
If I saw a crime like that and smashed the guys head in with a rock. They would lock me up instantly..
The Minnesota Supreme Court evidently can feel , and experience the fear of a situation.
Self-defense by most standards is the action one takes in a life threatening situation as is defined by the individual who exercises Self-defense.
To say the Court, or any other government entity is to determine the Right to Self-defense by administrative interpretation, without guaranteeing the safety and well-being of the individual Citizen by denial of self defense of those who need defense, is dereliction of duty of the highest order of those placed into positions of power to defend their charges.
There are consequences to every action.
So, the Islam loving state of Minnesota will have the same fate as London if they don’t stop the nonsense.
All people have the right to protect themselves and their families including tyranny from the government.
Really?! Just brake into my house and see what happens. I don’t care if their law says retreat, I ain’t moving or retreating. God gave me the right to defend my house and my family and I will do so.
Seems like Minnesota’s being “Canadianized”, being close neighbors and all. Odds are you won’t be able to retreat successfully or turn your back and run in a face-to-face fight if your attacker has a gun, or any other weapon or projectile that he can throw at you, which could practically be any hard object. Even the most inexperienced person can still chuck a knife at you the moment you turn your back or while retreating and there’s a chance that the blade will impale you. Even if it’s not the tip or the edge, just the whole knife in general can be an injurious projectile when thrown with violent determination.
Looking for a means of retreat first before drawing your weapon is counter-intuitive to moving swiftly enough to draw first and aim (if it’s a gun), thus you are in an advantageous position to “freeze” or prevent the attacker from drawing his weapon through verbal warnings, or to shoot first if the enemy decides to attack you anyway despite the fact. In Blevin’s case, though he didn’t draw first—and it’s not a pistol— he still succeeded in intimidating the other party with his machete therefore effectively deescalating the situation and coming out of it uninjured. Now if he started chopping them up immediately after drawing then it’s a different situation altogether.
Consider as well that the enemy might be faster than you, that you can trip and fall while running away, or while retreating. Moving backwards is not a sure thing since it’s not a natural movement of the legs and feet, not even if you can moonwalk like Michael Jackson (your attacker would probably want to murder you even more if you do this). And if you turn your back to run, you’re completely blind as to where and what your enemy is doing, unless you can twist your head like in the The Exorcist.
Point is, the court ruling presents more complications and risks. Anyway, this is how I personally see it.