According to Minnesota’s Supreme Court, “The duty to retreat when reasonably possible — a judicially created element of self-defense — applies to persons who claim they were acting in self-defense when they committed the felony offense of second-degree assault-fear with a device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm.”
Though the ruling affects the rights of gun owners (hence the picture, above), the accused person was wielding a machete.
The ruling was decided 4–2, with one justice arguing that this “duty to retreat” is novel and unrealistic. “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 wrote.
The ruling, as it stands, provides a precedent for Minnesotan judges, and is not binding outside the state. Nevertheless, it will be awfully tempting for other state courts to mimic. A duty to retreat seems diametrically opposed to “stand your ground” laws and rulings in other states.
Paul Jacob has written about the self-defense issue for years. For example:
- Self-Defense Is for Everybody (January 21, 2020)
- Self-Defense, Implausible? (February 18, 2018)
- Balking at the Ban (September 12, 2023)
The Epoch Times covered this story on Friday.