Minneapolis Police Chief Tim Dolan: Castle Doctrine Kills Cops

[HTML1]

“All Republican Rep. Tony Cornish wants is for every Minnesotan to be able to shoot first and ask questions later if they find an intruder in their homes, and he’s getting damned testy about the top cops from Minnesota’s largest cities standing in his way. Why don’t they love America like he does?” blogs.citypages.com blogger Hart Van Denburg is being sarcastic. The bill simply extends MN’s existing “castle doctrine”—no legal obligation to withdraw from a lethal threat in one’s home—to garages, cars, decks, tents, boats or overnight accommodations . . .

The bill does not “lessen the burden” of proof on an armed citizen to establish the fact that there was a credible lethal threat when they discharged their firearm. A fact that makes Dolan look idiotic.

But not as idiotic as State Sen. John Harrington, DFL-St. Paul: “I don’t think we should expect our law enforcement, our peace officers, our sheriffs to have to be able to look both ways when they’re chasing a bad guy through the back yards.”

Note: there are plenty of states where citizens have the right to defend their lives and the lives of their loved ones and innocent bystanders without a “duty to retreat” from their immediate environment. The law has not led to a bloodbath for cops. Just sayin’.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

16 Responses to Minneapolis Police Chief Tim Dolan: Castle Doctrine Kills Cops

  1. avatarJohn Fritz says:

    Ah yes, the cop-killing, citizen-slaughtering, wild-west-gunfightin’ Castle Doctrine. Pennsylvania is beginning its seventh year trying to get this thing passed. With our current RINO governor, GFL.

  2. avatarBuuurr says:

    Wow. And here I thought people who were afraid of being disarmed and left to the mercy of crime were crazy. Now I know they are right. Cops want to disarm you so they will have a safer way to come into your home after you have been victimized. Nice. Here is a thought. If you are afraid of getting shot on the job because you didn’t announce, ‘Police!’ Then too bad. Don’t be a cop. What a load of bullshit this is.

  3. avatarBuuurr says:

    LOL! “Now we are issuing warrants very visibly, now in uniform”. What the f*5k!? How am I supposed to know who you are if you enter my home without a uniform? Are you not breaking and entering without an official announcement? This guy is a complete moron for lack of better description. How about getting some training Mr. Chief of Police? What an ass.

    • avatarDaniel Zimmerman says:

      Exactly. He referes to an officer Mack who was killed, resulting in the change of policy to serving warrants in uniform.

      It’s hard to process the idiocy and reckless endangerment of sending plain clothes police to serve warrants in this manner. That was just asking for a violent response from someone who didn’t know or didn’t believe that the guy on the other side of the door was actually a cop.

      Next up…Minneapolis PD figures out that plain clothes, unmarked car traffic stops might not be a good idea either.

    • Buuurr, What’ the matter with you? They’re KNOCKING on the front door, man.

      You extremism is showing. What this top cop says is perfectly reasonable.

      • avatarGerald says:

        Bad guys knock on the front door too. That’s usually how a home invasion starts.

        • avatarBuuurr says:

          LOL, Gerald! I had a guy knock on my door last winter at 3 am and run like crazy when I moved the curtain to see who it was. Home invasion? Nah, he was just lost. That explains the running for ol Mikey. He was just trying to get home faster.

      • avatarBuuurr says:

        lol! The two who got shot were in an innocent man’s home. They were not outside. He was not even the man they were supposed to be serving the warrant to, Mike. What the hell are you talking about? They stormed into the wrong home and got shot. What can you say about it?

        It is also funny how once the Canadian steps onto US soil and buys a gun for protection that he becomes just another extremist. Gold. Keep shooting straight, Mikey. You’ll get there.

      • avatarBuuurr says:

        I should also add that knock knock, “Police! Warrant!” is much different then knock knock. Get a clue, Mikey. Even the SWAT in the area do it on announce without fail. This guy (like most of you clowns without a clue) is just trying to make everyone else pay for his shortcomings in training and brains seem less obvious by passing the blame.

  4. avatarmitch127 says:

    1. Minneapolis changed it’s entry tactics after 2 officers were shot on a wrong house no-knock warrant and then lost $500k (iirc) on the resulting civil suite. At least three other SWAT teams in the area have “surround and call out” policies rather than “kick in the door” for high risk warrents because people (especially criminals) have the habit of shooting at people who kick in thier door in the middle of the night. Exceptions are made when police believe that the suspect intends to fight if given the chance (and the last one that I saw resulted in officers taking fire anyway) or will take hostages.

    2. This law doesn’t change the threshhold or required compontents for a self defence claim. Saying anything else is lying. It changes how the person defending themself is treated as the police and DA build the case. In fact, the shooter will be treated in the same manner that officers involved in a shooting are treated now (except I assume that you’ll still be proned out if they get there and you still have a gun in your hand). Since the use of force law in MN doesn’t distiguish between peace officers and everyone else that sounds like a fair policy.

    3. From a budgetary perspetive Dolan should be thrilled to have this passed. His city gets sued or pre-emptively offers compensation (Minneapolis purchased 6 houses that I know of last year after using CS to extract a barricaded suspect before any legal action was pursued against them) constantly over use of force and would be protected from civil liability in cases where the officer was defending himself.

    4. I always find it funny when a member of management shows up to an anti-gun event while wearing his gun. I’ve seen the line troops shoot, not impressed with either the qualification requirements or the results. And those are the cops that face the most likely chance of needing to shoot well under pressure. I doubt this guy clears leather more often than forced to in order to maintain his POST qualification yet he thinks that he should have a gun but no one else should?

    Edit: decent debate on the bill in question if you are interested: http://insight.mprnews.org/discussion/comment/4081/#Comment_4081

  5. avatarTX Gun(s) Owner says:

    Got to love Minnesota. You have to go out of your way to avoid shooting bad people threatening you in your own back yard. And if you are unsuccessful at that, and have to shoot, you are bound by law to then render aide to said bad guy.

    I’ll stay where I am at.

  6. avatarJoe says:

    How is the jump made from SWAT or Cops serving a warrant to someone protecting their home. What I mean is as a cop I always thought there was someone trying to shoot me if we were kicking in a door. I never really worried as much if I was in uniform walking around a house or knocking of the door saying “it’s the police we need to talk to you”. And you better believe if we went into a house we were saying very loud “Police”. I just do not understand how anyone in there right mind thinks this will change. What this top cop is talking about doesn’t change anything for me. If someone kicks in my door or comes through a window and doesn’t run like hell when I yell at them it’s on. Why would I think its a cop?

    • avatarBuuurr says:

      You would think it was a cop because you have to give them all the chances in the world because crime is really just an unfortunate mistake and no one is bad, Joe. Other then that, no. Why would you think it is a cop? Your front door was just broken down and you don’t sell drugs, run a prostitute ring, or have any criminal dealings whatever. But it has to be a cop, right?

  7. avatarHeadspace says:

    This chief speaks about his years on the force and all his experience, but how many of those incidents involved innocent armed civilians? As pointed out above, the officer killed was at the wrong address. How many times have his officers been fired on by law abiding people? This is simply his fight to be able to control the population of Minneapolis, end of story. Having served for years in law enforcement, the one thing a smart cop does is always assume, and prepare for, the worst. We have years of statistics and experience to show his thoughts on this are unjustified. Many states including my own have castle laws on the books and there hasn’t been this huge killing spree he is trying to sell. Seriously wondering what his motives are, because anyone suposedly serving as a police chief should surely realize the idiocy of those statements. If not he should be fired for an inability to properly conduct police operations. Failed investigations 101!

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.