William Kirk
Hello again everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law tv. I'm Washington Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us. Coming to you again from Washington's premier indoor shooting facility. Of course, that's Security Gun Club right here in Woodville, Washington. We have been recording here all week because we are transitioning into a new studio. Listen, there was a case that came out earlier in the week. It had the exosphere, twittersphere, whatever the hell we're calling it this week, completely ablaze. Everyone freaking out. Some people out here in the YouTube atmosphere got out, did videos. The world was on fire and it was really quite something to watch. It had to do with the Minnesota State Supreme Court ruling that there was a duty to retreat in self-defense situations and that had a lot of people completely shocked. And so I decided to do something that mainstream media, social media, and even a few content creators did not do, and I actually just went and pulled the opinion and figured, well, I'll just read the whole thing for myself and this is going to be part one in a two part series. The second part, we're actually going to worry about the dissent, but I really do want to start educating you so that you can get your head around is this really as of a terrible ruling? As one might think it's a terrible outcome, no doubt about it, but I'm going to explain to you that the problem might not actually be with the court. So today, let's spend a few minutes. Let's get you educated and let's talk about the worst self-defense ruling ever just came from Minnesota.
William Kirk
Okay, America and Minnesota. This is what we're talking about. We're talking about the case of state of Minnesota v Blevins. Now the facts of this case are pretty bizarre, but the defendant here ended up in a mass transportation hub and at some point got into a verbal altercation with a female who had a couple of male companions. One of the male companions apparently threatened to slice his throat. Mr. Blevins decided to do what a lot of us would do, which is of course, pull the machete that he was concealing in his pants, start waving it around for approximately one minute, never retreated. He was then charged with a Minnesota equivalent of a second degree assault with a deadly weapon use of fear and things like that. This was all captured on some security cameras and the court of appeals had originally said that, Hey, Mr. Blevins, you had a duty to retreat.
William Kirk
You didn't do it. The video camera shows us you probably could have. And for that reason, you will in fact be guilty of two counts of assault. So when people start freaking out that the Minnesota State Supreme Court ruled this way, understand that they were affirming the ruling of a lower court. Now, here is the big rub, Minnesota and everyone else who wants to completely freak out on the Minnesota State Supreme Court, and I'm not defending 'em, but you see the way things are set up in Minnesota, it allows for this form of judicial advocacy. As a matter of fact, the whole duty to retreat is not anything which is codified in Minnesota law. You will not find a single Minnesota statute that describes that you have a duty to retreat. You'll find some Minnesota statutes who claim that you have the right to use force to defend yourself, but know the duty to retreat was judicially created and it was judicially created in Minnesota decades and decades ago and has remained good law in Minnesota.
William Kirk
And not one time, not one time has the state legislature ever tried to address this issue. So what you have Minnesota is you have a judicially created duty to retreat or put other ways. You are allowing your judges to do the legislature's work for the reasons described below. Based on the specific facts presented here, the brandishing of a machete, we now narrowly extend our judicially created self-defense element that imposes a duty to retreat when reasonably possible to persons who committed the felony offense of second degree assault fear with a dangerous weapon. In doing so, we need not and do not decide whether this judicially created duty to reasonably retreat applies to other charges of assault fear. I mean, they're literally the arrogance of what they're saying. We get to determine what the law is going to be. That is not actually how the judicial system works.
William Kirk
The judicial system is supposed to determine what the words of the law means. It is the legislature's job, but Minnesota, for whatever reason, you're blurring the lines there between your Article one and your article three branches of government. Because the court has created this duty to retreat, they have complete control over where this duty applies and does it. And so it allows the court, of course, to extend it to a situation like this, allowing them to rule requiring reasonable retreat will still permit people to reasonably defend themselves, but will also serve to end altercations and prevent escalation to the point that someone actually uses physical force and causes bodily harm or death. Now, I said earlier that the state legislature has candidly in the state of Minnesota, been completely asleep at the switch. You allowed your courts to do this and nobody has ever codified what the courts have done or codified it out of what the courts have done.
William Kirk
In fact, the courts even kind of Braggadociously point out Section 6 0 9 0 6 subdivision one sub three does not include any language regarding the duty to retreat when reasonably possible because the duty is a judicially created element of self-defense because it is a judicially created element, we determine the circumstances under which the duty to retreat when reasonably possible applies. There is the huge problem Minnesota because it is judicially created. That's right. They get to decide whenever the hell they want, when it applies and when it doesn't. Including here in this case on Mr. Blevins who's now facing 39 months in prison, given the facts of this case involve brandishing a machete in self-defense, our narrow extension of the judiciary created duty to retreat when reasonably possible is to persons who commit felony second degree, assault fear with a particular type of dangerous weapon, namely a device designed as a weapon incapable of producing death or bodily harm.
William Kirk
So understand Minnesota, this would apply to any of you, any of you who display a firearm as well. And listen, you've given the court a blank check to do this and they're going to make rulings like this, for example, where a party has not retreated from or attempted to shun the combat but has as in this case, unnecessarily entered into it. His act is not one of self-defense. And listen, if you're in the Minnesota State legislature, if you're the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus or something like that, you might want to start talking to your legislatures about, it might be time for them to start taking back some of their territory because otherwise you're going to continue to have courts say things like, since we announced this, judicially created duty to retreat if reasonably possible and articulated its elements the legislature has not seen fit to revise section 6 0 9 0.06, subdivision one three in any substantive matter accordingly, our judicial construction of a statute so long as it is unresolved is as much part thereof as it had been written into it originally and then Minnesota, in addition to having a complete runaway judiciary, I want you to know that apparently there's only one place where you might not have a duty to retreat as the court put it to date.
William Kirk
We have recognized only one exception to the judicially created duty to retreat when reasonably possible before using the force authorized in section 6 0 9 0.06 when a person is in their home, oh my God, how benevolent of 'em. You do not have to retreat from unlawful force being used against you in your home. However, it is up to the court system, it is ultimately up to the Minnesota Supreme Court to decide that. And candidly, why couldn't they take that right away as well by just issuing new case law. Now, you can imagine what the public policy arguments were that Blevins and his attorneys offered, but the court obviously here was not particularly persuaded. They ruled as followed implicit in blevins public policy arguments are two assertions. First, people have an inherent right to stand their ground, which he characterizes as self-defense. Second, the judicially created duty to retreat when reasonably possible serves a narrow public policy interest to avoid unnecessary bodily harm or death.
William Kirk
Both assertions are in direct conflict with well-established law, and they may actually be in conflict with well-established Minnesota law. I'll tell you what else it's in conflict with. Yeah, is common sense. As discussed above, we rejected the notion that people have an inherent right to stand their ground more than 150 years ago. Consequently, the legal excuse of self-defense codified in section 6 0 9 0.06 does not include an inherent right to stand your ground. Now, I want you to understand Minnesota, that even out here in the state of Washington, we absolutely positively are under no duty to retreat. And it's based on a very simple principle that if are lawfully in that location, why should you have to flee or yield to unlawful force being used against you to be sure avoiding unnecessary bodily harm or death is part of the public policy interest underlying the judicially created duty to retreat when reasonably possible.
William Kirk
But we have described the public policy interest underlying the judicially created duty to retreat when reasonably possible, more broadly to include avoiding potentially deadly confrontations. Oh my God. And see there is what happens when your legislature doesn't do the job is, is that the court now has all of this ambiguous language in which they're going to be able to cherry pick duties to retreat whenever they feel like it in whichever way the political winds are blowing. Now, of course, one of the reasons that we should be able to stand our ground is that perhaps that is the best way to avoid conflict. Well, the Minnesota State Supreme Court, apparently experts in this area was not convinced. Accordingly, blevins proposed exception to the duty to retreat that when a person is faced with bodily harm, they need not retreat when reasonably possible, but instead can stand their ground and escalate the situation to a more dangerous point by brandishing a device designed as a weapon in the uncertain hope that it will cause the initial aggressor to back down is unsound.
William Kirk
Okay, and then remember there was a whole second issue, which is if there is a duty to retreat, can a person reasonably do so? And one of the things that Blevins had argued here is, Hey, listen, the only way I could have possibly retreated is I would've had to turn my back to the perpetrators, thus making me more susceptible to attacks so it wasn't even reasonably available for me to retreat The court relying on the videotape evidence has made the following, finding and ruling when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence presented at trial disproves beyond a reasonable doubt. Blevins claim that it was not possible for him to retreat because searching for an escape route would've required him to turn away from the people who were threatening him. The surveillance video clearly shows that Blevins had room behind him to retreat and could have walked at an angle, keeping an eye on the woman and the two men while he retreated.
William Kirk
And you begin to see this crazy little balancing test that is created when we start creating well duty to retreat here, not duties to retreat here and things like that, or put other ways when you allow Minnesota, the courts to do the legislature's work. The problem here is not so much that you got a terrible court, you very well may have a terrible court. The problem is, is that your state legislature here is acquiesced a lot of their duties over to the court and until the state legislature actually assumes responsibility of their core functions, Minnesota, you're in for a very, very long haul. The case once again is State of Minnesota v Blevins. We'll link it up down below so that you guys can geek out on it for yourself. We'll be doing a second video where we're going to go through the dissent so you can really understand just how absurd all of this really is.
William Kirk
If you've got any questions about this or anything else related to what's left of our Second Amendment rights, you guys should know how to get ahold of Washington Gun Law by now. But if you don't, that's okay. That information is down there in the description box. Maybe you got an idea for a video we should be doing around here. If you do, go ahead and click on that link right there. Maybe you just want to subscribe to our newsletter. If you do, all of that information is down below in the description box. And then finally, and most importantly, let's everyone remember that part of being the lawful and responsible gun owner like we talk about all the time here, just to know what the law is in every situation, how it applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself. Until next time, thanks for watching and stay safe.
YouTube Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blO6cDxwDQ4
Credit: William Kirk, Washington Gun Law, President