Defend yourself at your own risk if you live in Minnesota.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a person has a duty to retreat even
when under active attack and can't even brandish or show a weapon to an attacker to deescalate the attack if there is any ability to retreat.

Guy was on a train platform and got into an argument with a woman. Her male friend pulled a knife, threatened to slit his throat, and advanced toward him. Guy showed a machete in response and attackers fled. Police arrested Guy and charged him with 2nd-degree assault for brandishing the machete.

State Supreme Court ultimately upheld conviction, saying a citizen not only cannot use force in self-defense, but may not even create fear in the mind of his attacker until all options to retreat are exhausted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B2Djy_PGfE

I've always wondered about these brandishing laws and to what extent they apply.

A brandishing law basically says you're not allowed to show a weapon to
someone as a way of communicating "Don't frak with me because I have the ability to frak with you."

But how far does that go? Would someone like Arnold in his prime with that massive physique and muscles be guilty of 'brandishing' merely by showing how own body to someone in an argument, especially if he puffed out his chest and flexed? I mean, he's doing the same thing as showing gun: Don't frak with me because I can frak with you.

Can one be guilty of brandishing their own body?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 02 Aug 2024 23:10:29 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Defend yourself at your own risk if you live in Minnesota.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a person has a duty to retreat even >when under active attack and can't even brandish or show a weapon to an >attacker to deescalate the attack if there is any ability to retreat.

Guy was on a train platform and got into an argument with a woman. Her male >friend pulled a knife, threatened to slit his throat, and advanced toward him. >Guy showed a machete in response and attackers fled. Police arrested Guy and >charged him with 2nd-degree assault for brandishing the machete.

State Supreme Court ultimately upheld conviction, saying a citizen not only >cannot use force in self-defense, but may not even create fear in the mind of >his attacker until all options to retreat are exhausted.

So at what point would he be allowed to pull out the machete? Does he
have to wait until the attackers slit his throat?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B2Djy_PGfE

I've always wondered about these brandishing laws and to what extent they >apply.

A brandishing law basically says you're not allowed to show a weapon to >someone as a way of communicating "Don't frak with me because I have the >ability to frak with you."

But how far does that go? Would someone like Arnold in his prime with that >massive physique and muscles be guilty of 'brandishing' merely by showing how >own body to someone in an argument, especially if he puffed out his chest and >flexed? I mean, he's doing the same thing as showing gun: Don't frak with me >because I can frak with you.

Can one be guilty of brandishing their own body?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/2/2024 7:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

Defend yourself at your own risk if you live in Minnesota.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a person has a duty to retreat even when under active attack and can't even brandish or show a weapon to an attacker to deescalate the attack if there is any ability to retreat.

Guy was on a train platform and got into an argument with a woman. Her male friend pulled a knife, threatened to slit his throat, and advanced toward him.
Guy showed a machete in response and attackers fled. Police arrested Guy and charged him with 2nd-degree assault for brandishing the machete.

State Supreme Court ultimately upheld conviction, saying a citizen not only cannot use force in self-defense, but may not even create fear in the mind of his attacker until all options to retreat are exhausted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B2Djy_PGfE

I've always wondered about these brandishing laws and to what extent they apply.

A brandishing law basically says you're not allowed to show a weapon to someone as a way of communicating "Don't frak with me because I have the ability to frak with you."

But how far does that go? Would someone like Arnold in his prime with that massive physique and muscles be guilty of 'brandishing' merely by showing how own body to someone in an argument, especially if he puffed out his chest and flexed? I mean, he's doing the same thing as showing gun: Don't frak with me because I can frak with you.

Can one be guilty of brandishing their own body?

"Creating fear in the mind of the attacker" is old news, e.g., like
robbing a convenience store by pointing your finger from inside a
sweater is 'armed robbery'.

The issue here is whether you can actively defend yourself. And the
legal consensus seems well-established: you can't. Maybe the defendant should've instead asserted his intent to protect bystanders (perhaps
even the woman herself) from a maniac brandishing a knife.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/2/24 6:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

Defend yourself at your own risk if you live in Minnesota.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a person has a duty to retreat even when under active attack and can't even brandish or show a weapon to an attacker to deescalate the attack if there is any ability to retreat.

Holy fuck you don't even know what the word "draconian" means? Good god
you're stupid.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Defend yourself at your own risk if you live in Minnesota.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a person has a duty to retreat even >when under active attack and can't even brandish or show a weapon to an >attacker to deescalate the attack if there is any ability to retreat.

Wow. That completely shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, and
precludes the defendant from making the obvious self defense argument.

Guy was on a train platform and got into an argument with a woman. Her male >friend pulled a knife, threatened to slit his throat, and advanced toward him. >Guy showed a machete in response and attackers fled. Police arrested Guy and >charged him with 2nd-degree assault for brandishing the machete.

State Supreme Court ultimately upheld conviction, saying a citizen not only >cannot use force in self-defense, but may not even create fear in the mind of >his attacker until all options to retreat are exhausted.

I guess one option he hadn't exhausted was getting his own throat slit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B2Djy_PGfE

I've always wondered about these brandishing laws and to what extent they >apply.

A brandishing law basically says you're not allowed to show a weapon to >someone as a way of communicating "Don't frak with me because I have the >ability to frak with you."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSnosk4tWrg

But how far does that go? Would someone like Arnold in his prime with that >massive physique and muscles be guilty of 'brandishing' merely by showing how >own body to someone in an argument, especially if he puffed out his chest and >flexed? I mean, he's doing the same thing as showing gun: Don't frak with me >because I can frak with you.

Can one be guilty of brandishing their own body?

I doubt he was trained to fight in real life as some of his movie
characters had been, but there are athletes who excel in multiple
sports, including fighting sports, who have also been bodybuilders.

I liked his somewhat libertarian politics when he was governator.

But we've heard of boxers who have gotten into deadly fights in bars (in
which they were attacked) who have faced criminal charges --
manslaughter -- because their fists were deadly weapons against
untrained assholes. The answer to your question is "yes".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)