'Castle Doctrine' proposal stalls

“This actually will save lives.”

This is how Rep. Tony Cornish (R-Good Thunder) began his presentation on HF498, known as the “Castle Doctrine.”

Countering the opposition, Cornish said, “This is not a bloodshed bill.” Nonetheless, the bill failed to get the approval of the House Public Safety and Civil Justice Committee March 13, on a 9-9 vote.

Current law permits the taking of another’s life when someone believes that his or her life is in danger of great bodily harm or death, or they are preventing someone from committing a serious crime in his or her home.

HF498 would allow use of deadly force if someone believes there is an “imminent threat” of substantial or great bodily harm or death to themselves or someone else. This would also apply when someone is on their porch, deck or in their car.

The bill would remove Minnesota common law requiring retreat from attack. Anyone would have the right to stand their ground, and so long as their objective is defensive, they could use deadly force “until the assailant is no longer an imminent threat.”

David Gross, an attorney and former prosecutor, said this bill is not about taking life.

“There is no reasonable person in the state of Minnesota who wants blood on their hands,” he said. “But what every reasonable person in the state of Minnesota wants less is their blood on someone else’s hands.”

Opposition was heard from the Minnesota Police & Peace Officers Association, the League of Women’s Voters and the Minnesota County Attorneys Association.

“This bill says that in Minnesota, property is more important than life,” said Washington County Attorney Doug Johnson. He said that not only would it make it extremely difficult to prove some cases beyond a reasonable doubt, it would inevitably be used as a defense for gang members.

A companion bill, SF446, sponsored by Sen. Pat Pariseau (R-Farmington), awaits action by the Senate Judiciary Committee.