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.
