Minnesota Supreme Court rules person being threatened cannot brandish weapon if ‘reasonably possible to retreat’ – Washington Examiner
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that individuals who are threatened must retreat from the situation if it is “reasonably possible,” rather than resorting to displaying a dangerous weapon. This decision arose from a case involving Earley Romero Blevins, who brandished a machete after being threatened by a man with a knife on a rail platform in June 2021. Blevins was convicted of second-degree assault-fear with a dangerous weapon, as the court found that he had a “duty” to retreat rather than confront the threat with a weapon. The court’s ruling, which was a 4-2 decision, upheld a lower court’s finding that Blevins had a reasonable opportunity to retreat but failed to do so.
Minnesota Supreme Court rules person being threatened cannot brandish weapon if ‘reasonably possible to retreat’
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that when a person is being threatened or attacked, he or she must retreat if “reasonably possible” rather than brandish a “dangerous weapon.”
In June 2021, Earley Romero Blevins pulled out a machete after a man with a knife allegedly threatened him on a rail platform in Minnesota. Blevins was arguing with a woman when the man approached him, and he said the man with the knife told him to come to the shelter at the station so “he could slice Blevins’s throat.” Blevins argued he pointed the machete at the woman and two men because he feared for his safety.
Blevins was tried and convicted of second-degree assault-fear with a dangerous weapon, and the high court rejected his claims of self-defense on Wednesday by stating he had a “duty” to retreat rather than threaten the would-be attacker with a weapon. The 4-2 Minnesota Supreme Court ruling affirmed a lower court ruling that “he had a reasonable opportunity to retreat and failed to do so.”
“We hold that a person claiming self-defense has a duty to retreat when reasonably possible before committing the felony offense of second-degree assault-fear with a dangerous weapon, specifically, a device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm,” the majority ruling said.
The dissent slammed the majority opinion, stating it “flies in the face of human nature” and was “unprecedented.”
“Today, the court takes the law of self-defense into uncharted waters. 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,” Justice Paul Thissen wrote in the dissent.
“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 added.
One other justice joined Thissen’s dissent, while the remaining three joined Justice Margaret Chutich’s majority opinion.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
