A recent ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court has sparked significant concern among those who advocate for the right to self-defense. The court’s decision now mandates a duty to retreat if you are being attacked before claiming self-defense. The ruling was made regarding a case involving second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon, which could have far-reaching implications for individuals who defend themselves in threatening situations.
The case in question involved Earley Romero Blevins, who was convicted of second-degree assault-fear with a dangerous weapon. Blevins brandished a machete at three individuals on a light rail platform in downtown Minneapolis after one of them, armed with a knife, threatened to slice his throat. Blevins argued that his actions were in self-defense, claiming that he feared for his life and was trying to deter the aggressors.
The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld Blevins’s conviction, stating that he had a reasonable opportunity to retreat and failed to do so. The court’s opinion emphasized that a person must attempt to retreat when possible before using force in self-defense. This ruling extended the judicially created duty to retreat to cases involving the felony offense of second-degree assault-fear with a dangerous weapon.
This decision has raised alarms among self-defense advocates for several reasons:
First up is that is forces a burden on defendants. Individuals claiming self-defense now bear the additional burden of proving that they had no reasonable opportunity to retreat, which can be incredibly subjective.
There’s also a potential for misjudgment. The requirement to retreat could lead to misjudgment during life-threatening encounters. In the heat of the moment, a person might not accurately assess whether a safe retreat is possible, leading to hesitation that could result in serious injury or worse.
The ruling might deter individuals from defending themselves out of fear that their actions will be scrutinized for compliance with the duty to retreat. Which some have said is the point. The left has struggled to whack away at the Second Amendment, so instead, they are making it illegal to defend yourself.
The ruling appears to state that even when a person is actively being attacked and at risk of death they cannot defend themselves and brandish a deadly weapon if it is “reasonably possible to retreat.”
You can read the ruling for yourself here.
