Reply #11: Uh-huh

[krispos42]

Right.


I love this part:

"It creates a subjective standard of the reasonableness of a person's actions in using deadly force, rather than the objective standard in current law."

Okay, so what's the objective standard, Mr. County Attorney?

"In other words, the issue becomes what is in the mind of the person using deadly force rather than how a reasonable person would have reacted under the same circumstances."

Ah. Okay. I commend you for your objectivity.





And how is this defined? "...no one has ever been prosecuted under Minnesota statute for legitimate self-defense."

By not being found guilty after the County Attorney brings the intended victim up on manslaughter or homicide charges? Funny how the article doesn't address this issue.

Because, after all, if you are prosecuted under Minnesota statute and found guilty, your claim of self-defense is by definition illegitimate.

Backstrom quotes a former president of the National District Attorneys' Association who said that these "shoot first/ask questions later" laws being pushed by the gun lobby in one state after another "basically give citizens more rights to use deadly force than we give police officers, and with less review."

And, it should be said, without the training a police officer receives.

So cops can't shoot people that ambush them with a weapon? Gee, I didn't know that.