ADVERTISEMENT

UPDATE: Judge Delares Mistrial in Case of Self Defense or 2nd Degree Murder

LOL...no. Why would I? Everybody who said "OJ was guilty!" did the same thing. If there's ever been any court decision you disagreed with...YOU did the same thing.

Exactly my point. Here is the post you are responding to:

But that isn't, and hasn't been what you are saying. You are saying the jury would be legally wrong, based on the facts from the article. Not that you'd disagree with them, but that the law does.

Would you like to retract that?

You are refusing to say this is just your opinion. Even though you've said it is just your opinion. This demonstrates your attempt to play both sides, claiming legal superiority and correctness, but when called out then claiming it was just an opinion. I just gave you an out to admit it was just an opinion, but you are now refusing.

You bring up OJ, but again fail the analysis. People are, generally, not saying it was "legally wrong," as in the jury violated the instructions from the Court, or that the Court should never have allowed it to a jury anyways (wasn't even a self-defense claim). People say the jury is wrong, based on what they believe the evidence to be. Disagreeing with a court opinion may, in fact, believe it is legally wrong, but that isn't the scenario here. You are saying that, by law, he should not be allowed the self defense claim because of his going to the vehicle, retrieving a gun, then returning to the "conflict." You think that is settled law in Minnesota. I have told you countless times that is not true, and even provided specifics, yet you continue to claim that this isn't just your opinion, but it is the law.I gave you an out, and you refused to take it.
 
You are refusing to say this is just your opinion. Even though you've said it is just your opinion. This demonstrates your attempt to play both sides, claiming legal superiority and correctness, but when called out then claiming it was just an opinion. I just gave you an out to admit it was just an opinion, but you are now refusing.
I'm dumber for having read this but you're even dumber for having typed it. Seriously...really and truly seriously...do I have to type "IMO" with every statement? Is that all it will take to satisfy you...IMO? Just so you know...that charge of 2nd degree murder lodged against Weiss....it's just an opinion...IMO. Whatever the jury decides...just an opinion...IMO.
 
I'm dumber for having read this but you're even dumber for having typed it. Seriously...really and truly seriously...do I have to type "IMO" with every statement? Is that all it will take to satisfy you...IMO? Just so you know...that charge of 2nd degree murder lodged against Weiss....it's just an opinion...IMO. Whatever the jury decides...just an opinion...IMO.

NO, of course you don't have to post IMO. I'm happy to accept posts as opinion, except that you and cs have said that it is the law. I literally JUST asked you to confirm it was just your opinion and you refused. That just happened, scroll up. From the very beginning I've pointed out where and how your demands did not have to be the only interpretation, and you spent a dozen pages claiming that it is the law. You and he were very, very specific, it is the law, it must be considered as X, and so on and so forth. When asked to clarify it as an opinion, you refused.
 
NO, of course you don't have to post IMO. I'm happy to accept posts as opinion, except that you and cs have said that it is the law. I literally JUST asked you to confirm it was just your opinion and you refused. That just happened, scroll up. From the very beginning I've pointed out where and how your demands did not have to be the only interpretation, and you spent a dozen pages claiming that it is the law. You and he were very, very specific, it is the law, When asked to clarify it as an opinion, you refused.
And, in the opinion of the DA, Weiss violated the law. And the DA will tell you "it is the law, it must be considered as X, and so on and so forth". The DA will NOT state that it's his or her "opinion" that the law was broken even though that's exactly what it is.

I honestly have no earthly idea what point you're trying to make here.
 
And, in the opinion of the DA, Weiss violated the law. And the DA will tell you "it is the law, it must be considered as X, and so on and so forth". The DA will NOT state that it's his or her "opinion" that the law was broken even though that's exactly what it is.

I honestly have no earthly idea what point you're trying to make here.

There you are wrong and misunderstanding the role of the D.A. and its position in an adversarial system. You still miss exactly what I've posted for dozens of pages, and I won't attempt any more with you after this. At least you admit you have "no earthly idea" what I'm saying.

The D.A. isn't arguing, or likely won't argue, that the law says the defendant can't utilize self defense instructions after the return from the vehicle. That is what you are claiming, that the law in Minnesota has already decided this, and that by law, his returning from the vehicle negates self defense. The prosecutor will likely argue, both in its indictment, supporting minutes, and at trial, that the act of returning demonstrated the unreasonableness of it, not that it was by law unreasonable. I understand you can't grasp that distinction, but it is an extremely important one here. There will be no instruction to the jury that the return was unreasonable, which is the only outcome of what you claim.

This really isn't that hard, there is a huge divide between:

"This isn't my opinion, it is the law,"

and

"I believe the facts negate self defense..."
(hell, even saying, "the facts negate self defense," and removing I believe is fine)

And guess what the prosecutor will be saying to the jury. "We believe this proves; or you will find ____________________." That prosecutor will not say, "By law, his return from the car dissallows self defense." The Judge would stop him cold and declare a mistrial.
 
The. Law. Says. You. Must. Be. A. Reluctant. Participant.

In. My. Opinion. His. Retrieval. Of. A. Gun. And. Reengagement. Is. A. Clear. Indication. That. He. Was. A. Willing. Participant.

If. A. Jury. Accepts. That. Theory. Weiss. Would. Lose. On. A. Self-defense. Claim.

By. Law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: longliveCS40
The. Law. Says. You. Must. Be. A. Reluctant. Participant.

.

No it doesn't. And no instruction to the jury will likely be given using those words. I've already pointed this out to you. You are free to continue to be wrong about it. And more importantly to your claim, it doesn't say when. You've claimed - legally - when it - must - be applied. Legally and must. You've yet to retract that. Do a "CTRL-F" on any of these pages for the word "reluctant":

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.06 (Self Defense law, much from common law)
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.065 (Justifiable taking of life)

And I've already provided the elements in an earlier post, hell I think you did too. Does there have to be an absence of aggression and provocation? Yes, as I've posted many times, it falls in to a determination of reasonableness and is an element. But you keep claiming things are "law" when they aren't.

Maybe what you are looking for is this: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/sessiondaily/SDView.aspx?StoryID=12644

Minnesota HF238. "Under this bill, he added, a person must be a reluctant participant, meaning that they could not have been provoked or initiated the situation." So let's look at the language he proposed: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/te...ssion_number=0&session_year=2017&version=list

SF292: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/te...ssion_number=0&session_year=2017&version=list

Take your time, I look forward to you proving me wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: coloradonoles
No it doesn't. And no instruction to the jury will likely be given using those words. I've already pointed this out to you. You are free to continue to be wrong about it. And more importantly to your claim, it doesn't say when. You've claimed - legally - when it - must - be applied. Legally and must. You've yet to retract that. Do a "CTRL-F" on any of these pages for the word "reluctant":

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.06 (Self Defense law, much from common law)
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.065 (Justifiable taking of life)

And I've already provided the elements in an earlier post, hell I think you did too. Does there have to be an absence of aggression and provocation? Yes, as I've posted many times, it falls in to a determination of reasonableness and is an element. But you keep claiming things are "law" when they aren't.
Reluctant participant IS the law. Period. Full stop.

State v. Baker, 280 Minn. 518 (1968): Reluctant participant

How that is interpreted is opinion. Period. Full Stop. You are free to have your opinion. So is the jury. And if their OPINION is that Weiss was a willing participant, they can BY LAW, refuse to consider a claim of self-defense. If Weiss's lawyers want to take your tack that he was willing right up until the moment he raised his gun and fired and that's enough to make him reluctant...fine. The jury might buy THAT. As I said, juries do strange things.

I doubt this would even be the prosecution's case since they have an eyewitness who says there was no contact prior to the fatal shot. If the jury believes THAT...in their opinion...they can refuse to consider self-defense based on reasonable force. By Law. And I guarantee you that the DA WILL explain the law to them and explain how Weiss's actions fail in one or more ways to meet the requirements laid out BY LAW.

I suppose now, you'll be saying that's not the law because Rahim might have grabbed for the gun 3 minutes earlier and that's close enough in time to justify lethal force. And Weiss's lawyer could make THAT argument. And the jury might buy it. IMO, they wouldn't. You're free to think otherwise.

Period. Full Stop. This is idiotic. Out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: longliveCS40
Reluctant participant IS the law. Period. Full stop. How that is interpreted is opinion. Period. Full Stop. You are free to have your opinion. So is the jury. And if their OPINION is that Weiss was a willing participant, they can BY LAW, refuse to consider a claim of self-defense. If Weiss's lawyers want to take your tack that he was willing right up until the moment he raised his gun and fired and that's enough to make him reluctant...fine. The jury might buy THAT. As I said, juries do strange things.

I doubt this would even be the prosecution's case since they have an eyewitness who says there was no contact prior to the fatal shot. If the jury believes THAT...in their opinion...they can refuse to consider self-defense based on reasonable force. By Law. And I guarantee you that the DA WILL explain the law to them and explain how Weiss's actions fail in one or more ways to meet the requirements laid out BY LAW.

I suppose now, you'll be saying that's not the law because Rahim might have grabbed for the gun 3 minutes earlier and that's close enough in time to justify lethal force. And Weiss's lawyer could make THAT argument. And the jury might buy it. IMO, they wouldn't. You're free to think otherwise.

Period. Full Stop. This is idiotic. Out.

Period? Full Stop? Post it. A statute, a court ruling, a jury instruction, anything. Even a real legal treatise (i.e. not one authored by who knows on a concealed carry webpage, a law review article, a treatise on Minnesota law, etc.) Really, anywhere that the words "reluctant" and "participant" are used together regarding self defense. I just gave you a whole lot of rope, good luck.
 
Period? Full Stop? Post it. A statute, a court ruling, a jury instruction, anything. Even a real legal treatise (i.e. not one authored by who knows on a concealed carry webpage, a law review article, a treatise on Minnesota law, etc.) Really, anywhere that the words "reluctant" and "participant" are used together regarding self defense. I just gave you a whole lot of rope, good luck.
I just did. For the third time.

State v. Baker, 280 Minn. 518 (1968): Reluctant participant

I copied it directly from a gun owner group - word for word. You're free to read the opinion and come back and say, "See? It never says 'reluctant participant" but that is EXACTLY how the case law is referred to IN MINNESOTA.

"In Minnesota, case law requires that you must be a reluctant participant in a self defense situation. You can't go out looking for a fight."

"In addition to using reasonable force, you must be a reluctant participant in the altercation and have attempted to withdraw or retreat (if safe to do so), otherwise, your involvement may be considered to be willing mutual combat (brawling/fighting) and subsequently you may erode any legal protection afforded you under the law."

"2. You must be a reluctant participant - I believe this should be a key component of any use of lethal force law and I am happy it is part of Minnesota’s."

Consider it shorthand. That doesn't change what it means.
 
Last edited:
I just did. For the third time.

State v. Baker, 280 Minn. 518 (1968): Reluctant participant

I copied it directly from a gun owner group - word for word. You're free to read the opinion and come back and say, "See? It never says 'reluctant participant" but that is EXACTLY how the case law is referred to IN MINNESOTA.

"In Minnesota, case law requires that you must be a reluctant participant in a self defense situation. You can't go out looking for a fight."

"In addition to using reasonable force, you must be a reluctant participant in the altercation and have attempted to withdraw or retreat (if safe to do so), otherwise, your involvement may be considered to be willing mutual combat (brawling/fighting) and subsequently you may erode any legal protection afforded you under the law."

"2. You must be a reluctant participant - I believe this should be a key component of any use of lethal force law and I am happy it is part of Minnesota’s."

Consider it shorthand. That doesn't change what it means.
Too funny.

The. Law. Says. You. Must. Be. A. Reluctant. Participant.

I point out that the law does not, in fact say that, completely contradictory to what you just posted, with emphasis on each word. I challenge you to prove me wrong, and you provide a case from the 60s which you admit doesn't even use those words.

Then, you point to a "gun owner group", in which they are using their words and their opinion to summarize what they think the law is. Again, too funny, proves my point almost to an absurdity.

Here is the thing I've been waving at you for over a dozen pages. The law is, well, the law. Your words, a gun owner group's words, and opinions are not the law. They can help understand the law, they can provide context to lay people, but They. Are. Not. The. Law. Why do you think they aren't quoting the law directly, either from statute or precedent? Why didn't you say, "The law says you can't go out looking for a fight", instead of using "reluctant participant?" Both are used as a summary within your posted article, but you thought one sounded more legal and assumed it was the words used.

This will be proven, yet again, when the LAW is provided to the jury in this case, and it will not use those words.

Think about what you just did. To prove something is "the law", you just googled Minnesota self defense, or maybe even reluctant participant, and then one of the sites you bring up which likely has no named author, and next to no citation to legal authorities, is passed off as THE LAW. For lack of a better description you just took a history paper to your high school teacher and plagiarized wikipedia, and when your teacher told you to support it, you just quoted wikipedia. Hey, its a useful source, but it isn't a source for defining The. Law. Lawyers use lots of analogies for explaining "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a jury, but none of those analogies or phrases used become "the law" in place of beyond a reasonable doubt, even if it shows up on a web page with some group's summary of the law. Makes sense, right?

I've enjoyed this, thank you. I hope you didn't overpay for that Holiday Inn stay which convinced you that you were a lawyer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coloradonoles
Actual language used in that case, and "the law":

" Defendant requested the court to instruct the jury that in exercising his right of self-defense he was not required to retreat but could stand his ground or even pursue his attacker if it appeared reasonably necessary, and that he could do so even though he might more easily have gained safety by retreating. Defendant's request, however, is not in accord with the law of self-defense as set out in State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 368, 373, 152 N.W.2d 529, 532:

"It is a general rule that the legal excuse of self-defense is available only to those who act honestly and in good faith. The rule requires (1) the absence of aggression or provocation on the part of the slayer; (2) the actual and honest belief of the slayer that he was in imminent danger of death, great bodily harm, or some felony and it was necessary to take the action he did; (3) the existence of reasonable grounds for such belief; and (4) the duty of the slayer to retreat or avoid the danger if reasonably possible." (Italics supplied.)"

I even gave you a tip, ctrl-F search for reluctant or participant, anyone want to guess how many results? Yep, zero, for either word. A person could decide to try and analogize and describe what the bolded part means, but that would simply be their opinion, not the law. No matter how good of a web page they create to house it.
 
I can not believe you have spent all this time and effort arguing about the words "reluctant participant". I thought you were actually trying to make a relevant point and I've been wracking my brain trying to understand it. That's why I couldn't figure out for the life of me what the hell you were talking about. That you think you've scored points by saying they wouldn't actually say the words "reluctant participant" but would instead cite that passage of the law that everyone in Minnesota would...DOES... call "reluctant participant" is actually kind of sad. I'll give you this, you've poured your heart and soul into the absolute dumbest argument I think I've ever been involved in. I only wish I had figured it out about 5 pages ago. Feel free to respond with something totally inane. I am out.
 
I can not believe you have spent all this time and effort arguing about the words "reluctant participant". I thought you were actually trying to make a relevant point and I've been wracking my brain trying to understand it. That's why I couldn't figure out for the life of me what the hell you were talking about. That you think you've scored points by saying they wouldn't actually say the words "reluctant participant" but would instead cite that passage of the law that everyone in Minnesota would...DOES... call "reluctant participant" is actually kind of sad. I'll give you this, you've poured your heart and soul into the absolute dumbest argument I think I've ever been involved in. I only wish I had figured it out about 5 pages ago. Feel free to respond with something totally inane. I am out.

I hadn't been arguing about those words, until just the last couple pages in which you further claimed to know "the law." My point was, all along, you and cs were demanding that the "law" is one thing, not in your opinion, but that it was "the law." I pointed out you don't know "the law." You responded by saying, very snarkily, with emphasis, that "the law" was "reluctant participant." Therefore I used that to show you that even on that very specific point you so proudly believed was correct ............................. You. Were. Wrong. Feel free to think I've made a dumb argument, and I will happily revive this thread when and if this goes to a jury to show you the exact jury instructions, which state "the law", to the jury in this case. And it will prove you unequivocally wrong. But, of course, you won't admit it.

Do you even live in Minnesota? Do you have any frame of reference, whatsoever for making your claims? Your last post was about as close to an admission of being wrong as I guess I could expect.
 
Is it reasonable to assume that reluctant participation is part of Minnesota law? Yes, I think it is. (THIS IS MY OPINION) Do I think that numerous ccw sites conjured that out of thin air? No. (THIS IS MY OPINION) Do I think the ccw sites would insert that stipulation if it wasn't law? No, because they're going to instruct their students the exact dos and don'ts of firing their weapon in self defense. (THIS IS MY OPINION)

But hey, if you want to put your head in the sand and say "Well I just can't find it explicitly laid out in very limited the statute or case law available on the interwebs," then fine.

Let's say it isn't explicitly laid out in law. Then, it comes down to the jury and they will use reason to make their determination with the law as a guide. At that point, I believe it comes down to what was going on when Weiss retrieved the gun. If, when he was in the process of retrieving his gun, either of the two other guys approached him quickly, then he'll be found not guilty.

If he retrieved the gun and then made any advancement toward the location of the other two guys, he's going to be found guilty.

So, in the end, whether "reluctant participation" is explicitly defined in the law, I think that's what this case is going to come down to for the jury.

Now, having said all that, if there's one person on the jury that is a staunch ccw proponent or has prejudice against people of color or young people, then he'll be not guilty no matter what happened.
 
Is it reasonable to assume that reluctant participation is part of Minnesota law? Yes, I think it is. (THIS IS MY OPINION) Do I think that numerous ccw sites conjured that out of thin air? No. (THIS IS MY OPINION) Do I think the ccw sites would insert that stipulation if it wasn't law? No, because they're going to instruct their students the exact dos and don'ts of firing their weapon in self defense. (THIS IS MY OPINION)

But hey, if you want to put your head in the sand and say "Well I just can't find it explicitly laid out in very limited the statute or case law available on the interwebs," then fine.

Let's say it isn't explicitly laid out in law. Then, it comes down to the jury and they will use reason to make their determination with the law as a guide. At that point, I believe it comes down to what was going on when Weiss retrieved the gun. If, when he was in the process of retrieving his gun, either of the two other guys approached him quickly, then he'll be found not guilty.

If he retrieved the gun and then made any advancement toward the location of the other two guys, he's going to be found guilty.

So, in the end, whether "reluctant participation" is explicitly defined in the law, I think that's what this case is going to come down to for the jury.

Now, having said all that, if there's one person on the jury that is a staunch ccw proponent or has prejudice against people of color or young people, then he'll be not guilty no matter what happened.

You can use that term however you see fit, I have no problem with that. You can use those words to easier describe it to the public, more simple than constantly citing precedent and statutory language.

But, you can't continually demand it is "THE LAW" or even that you know what the "LAW" is without it actually being such. Is that really a hard concept to agree with?

See this claim from your post: "If he retrieved the gun and then made any advancement toward the location of the other two guys, he's going to be found guilty." No, I don't think that is necessarily true, because that isn't what the law says, no matter how many times you claim it does.

The Jury WILL use the law as a guide, and that guide will not use those words, and I've already provided to you the elements they will use, regarding provocation and the like. For some reason you two want to keep changing those instructions to fit your decided outcome. Why not just post your decided outcome?

What I'm insulted by is the fact that you so believe that things written online by groups that don't publish who the writer is, or even where they got the information, but then refuse to believe me, a person on an Iowa-specific message board who is specifically providing source and cites for my position. You are simply choosing them instead of me, which is your prerogative, but isn't grounded in fact.

I can't for the life of me figure out what you mean by: "But hey, if you want to put your head in the sand and say "Well I just can't find it explicitly laid out in very limited the statute or case law available on the interwebs," then fine." That is what YOU are doing, not me. I'm not going off of a "very limited statute," the statute is the law, the law that will be instructed on to the jury. I'm not going off of just what can be found on the interwebs, I told you there were no reported cases, not "I couldn't find anything on google." YOU are basing it on what you've googled on the interwebs.
 
Last edited:
You can use that term however you see fit, I have no problem with that. You can use those words to easier describe it to the public, more simple than constantly citing precedent and statutory language.

But, you can't continually demand it is "THE LAW" or even that you know what the "LAW" is without it actually being such. Is that really a hard concept to agree with?

See this claim from your post: "If he retrieved the gun and then made any advancement toward the location of the other two guys, he's going to be found guilty." No, I don't think that is necessarily true, because that isn't what the law says, no matter how many times you claim it does.

The Jury WILL use the law as a guide, and that guide will not use those words, and I've already provided to you the elements they will use, regarding provocation and the like. For some reason you two want to keep changing those instructions to fit your decided outcome. Why not just post your decided outcome?

So you think that a jury isn't making a judgement? I mean if law is so cut and dry as you claim, "deliberations" should take about 10 minutes in trials.

This isn't black and white. I'm saying that I believe it is pretty apparently reluctant participation is part of Minnesota self defense law. The evidence points to that being the case despite not having a statute or case law available readily to reference online. If you want to discount that part or act like it's conjured, fine.

I guess part of the problem with this thread is that there are kind of two different things we're discussing: 1. Do you personally think Weiss is guilty? 2. Do you think a jury will find Weiss guilty?

To item 1, the answer is yes for me based on what we know. To item 2, I'm not sure.
 
So you think that a jury isn't making a judgement? I mean if law is so cut and dry as you claim, "deliberations" should take about 10 minutes in trials.

You've moved beyond all rational thought. This is what you have claimed not me. I have posted my thoughts on the jury and their deliberations at least ten times. I have continuously pointed out (to your opposition), that the jury could consider reasonableness at either point, returning to the car, or even after back at the confrontation. You, on the other hand, claim the LAW says otherwise. You are quite literally blaming me for the thing you are doing.
This isn't black and white. I'm saying that I believe it is pretty apparently reluctant participation is part of Minnesota self defense law. The evidence points to that being the case despite not having a statute or case law available readily to reference online. If you want to discount that part or act like it's conjured, fine.

I guess part of the problem with this thread is that there are kind of two different things we're discussing: 1. Do you personally think Weiss is guilty? 2. Do you think a jury will find Weiss guilty?

To item 1, the answer is yes for me based on what we know. To item 2, I'm not sure.

If it isn't "black and white" why do you keep saying it is "THE LAW"?

Phew, your final statement about your opinion could have prevented all of this. But instead, you previously wrote:

Current law in Minnesota says you have to be a reluctant participant to claim self defense.

Whether it passes or does not pass, BEING A RELUCTANT PARTICIPANT is the law. It is the law now.

Read it again.

You are trying to omit reluctant participation because you know it makes Weiss guilty.

This is law, not "opinion"

Feel free to post your opinion, but I can't tell you anymore that you are wrong on "the law", I've provided plenty of material for you read and conclude you are wrong on that. Why do you keep changing the words to this specific phrase? You and tar have repeatedly said that, even if it isn't "technically the law" (which of course is what the law is, extremely technical), but the underlying meaning is the same, why do you repeatedly demand that the law is, in fact, those words? I can only surmise it is because you feel that phrase better fits your conclusion than "provocation" does.
 
You've moved beyond all rational thought. This is what you have claimed not me. I have posted my thoughts on the jury and their deliberations at least ten times. I have continuously pointed out (to your opposition), that the jury could consider reasonableness at either point, returning to the car, or even after back at the confrontation. You, on the other hand, claim the LAW says otherwise. You are quite literally blaming me for the thing you are doing.


If it isn't "black and white" why do you keep saying it is "THE LAW"?

Phew, your final statement about your opinion could have prevented all of this. But instead, you previously wrote:









Feel free to post your opinion, but I can't tell you anymore that you are wrong on "the law", I've provided plenty of material for you read and conclude you are wrong on that. Why do you keep changing the words to this specific phrase? You and tar have repeatedly said that, even if it isn't "technically the law" (which of course is what the law is, extremely technical), but the underlying meaning is the same, why do you repeatedly demand that the law is, in fact, those words? I can only surmise it is because you feel that phrase better fits your conclusion than "provocation" does.

Jesus Christ. You're going to make me go all out effort for a damn HROT thread and find you Minnesota case law, aren't you?

I'll have to come back to it once I have the time to. Reluctant participation is going to be a precedent set in case law in Minnesota. I'll post it when I can find the time/resources to make that a proven fact.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your rant because I don't believe it makes any sense at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HKI
https://books.google.com/books?id=2...Q6AEwB3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Reluctant&f=false

Start on page 62. A case very much similar to the Weiss case. The shooter wss convicted of 2nd degree murder.

Sad thing is, you provided this five days ago, and must not have read it and realized what it meant:

First, it was from the "carry book," and did actually cite to law and precedent to establish its opinion, for example on page 64 it cites to a "Boyce" case, yet has no discussion of reluctant. The link you provided clearly shows you searched for "reluctant" within this book and it had three results, two on that page 64 and one on page 125. It even uses quotes around "reluctant participant", but doesn't link that quoted phrase to anything, not to the Boyce case, not to a statute, not to anything at all. And it defines it in layman's terms that aren't cited to anywhere, clearly layman's terms that they created to enforce their opinion. Which is fine. But. It. Doesn't. Make. It. Law. (to steal this weird emphasis from tar). No Judge is providing the jury with "The Carry Book" to assist in their deliberations, no prosecutor will read from it. You could see this from, of course, the books disclaimer right at the front trying to remove its liability by saying it isn't legal advice, and one should get a lawyer and actually review the law.
 
Jesus Christ. You're going to make me go all out effort for a damn HROT thread and find you Minnesota case law, aren't you?

I'll have to come back to it once I have the time to. Reluctant participation is going to be a precedent set in case law in Minnesota. I'll post it when I can find the time/resources to make that a proven fact.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your rant because I don't believe it makes any sense at all.

"Reluctant participation is going to be a precedent set in case law in Minnesota. I'll post it when I can find the time/resources to make that a proven fact." Please, please do this, as I've already told you it isn't. At that point when you make the realization that I'm right, and that you have been unreasonable, we can move on and be friends. I know you are up to that, and I know tarheel never could. How about we agree to let this thread die, until you prove that I'm wrong, and you are right, and that it is a "proven fact." Just be sure to actually come back when you fail, don't be a pussy.
 
Jesus Christ. You're going to make me go all out effort for a damn HROT thread and find you Minnesota case law, aren't you?

I'll have to come back to it once I have the time to. Reluctant participation is going to be a precedent set in case law in Minnesota. I'll post it when I can find the time/resources to make that a proven fact.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your rant because I don't believe it makes any sense at all.
Give it up. HKI is saying you can't call it "the space agency" because it's NAME is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. That "reluctant participant" is widely used in MN to refer to that section of THE LAW that defines the phrase is meaningless to him. It is possibly the most bizarre tactic I've ever seen employed. I'm done with it. But for your edification:

State v. Shippey, 10 Minn. 178 at 182 (223 at 230):
"Where the 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."

State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 368, 373, 152 N.W.2d 529, 532:
"It is a general rule that the legal excuse of self-defense is available only to those who act honestly and in good faith. The rule requires (1) the absence of aggression or provocation on the part of the slayer...

Good luck.
 
Give it up. HKI is saying you can't call it "the space agency" because it's NAME is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. That "reluctant participant" is widely used in MN to refer to that section of THE LAW that defines the phrase is meaningless to him. It is possibly the most bizarre tactic I've ever seen employed. I'm done with it. But for your edification:

State v. Shippey, 10 Minn. 178 at 182 (223 at 230):
"Where the 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."

State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 368, 373, 152 N.W.2d 529, 532:
"It is a general rule that the legal excuse of self-defense is available only to those who act honestly and in good faith. The rule requires (1) the absence of aggression or provocation on the part of the slayer...

Good luck.

That is completely manipulative and fraudulent on your behalf. That is NOT what I'm saying, at all, but maybe you can't understand the difference. You've now cited two cases that prove my point, yet still claim to "win" this argument. You even bolded "aggression or provocation," something that I posted and provided multiple times throughout this thread. What "HKI is saying," is that what is important is what LAW will be provided to the jury. Do you really not agree that the LAW provided to the jury is the important consideration? That LAW will not be "reluctant participation," and you've already demonstrated this with those citations and quotes you finally provide. On page 16 you are finally recognizing that you are wrong and bolding phrases I've repeatedly hammered you with. You can't "edify" me something I've quite literally posted in response to you. Also, longlivecs40 clearly believes, like you did, that "reluctant participant" IS in the law, he just said so, and that he would prove it.

Also, those terms do not "define the phrase" "reluctant participation," as you wrote. If anything, "reluctant participation" is an attempt at lay-defining "absence of aggression or provocation." The fact you can't understand this, or recognize why this is important in a court of law (which is what we are discussing), is unfortunate for you. You also haven't answered whether you even live in Minnesota. If not, why claim to know what Minnesotan's do and refer to?
 
Last edited:
Shit, take a look at prior posts of mine:

The most recent self defense case with an appellate decision in MN appears to be that Eggermont ruling with language discussed previously:

A valid claim of self-defense requires the existence of four elements: (1) the absence of aggression or provocation on the part of the defendant; (2) the defendant's actual and honest belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; (3) the existence of reasonable grounds for that belief; and (4) the absence of a reasonable possibility of retreat to avoid the danger. Although the defendant must come forward with evidence to support his claim, it is the State that bears the ultimate burden of disproving self-defense. To meet its burden, however, the State need only disprove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the elements of self-defense.

The "reluctant participant" is simply a re-wording of (1), absence of aggression or provocation, and hasn't been used in any self defense case under that phrasing. Eggermont was convicted and appeal was affirmed. The court found that he made a "motion" with the flashlight first, that made the other guy concerned, and therefore he provoked it. As I've pointed out repeatedly regarding the subjective fear of the guy who was shot, "...Minnesota courts do not "focus[] on the legal justification of a victim's response to the aggressor's acts when considering whether a defendant has forfeited self-defense by provoking the assault." Therefore the shot-guy may have been able to present a self defense claim if result was reversed, but that doesn't change the self defense claim of the guy charged here.

This was the instruction provided by the Court in that case:

"If the defendant began or induced the assault that led to the necessity of using force in the defendant's own defense, the right to stand the defendant's ground, and thus defend himself, is not immediately available to him. Instead, the defendant must first have declined to carry on the assault and have honestly tried to escape from it, and must clearly and fairly have informed the adversary of a desire for peace and of abandonment of the assault. Only after the defendant has done that will the law justify the defendant in thereafter standing his ground and using force against the other person."

Do with that instruction what you will, but it doesn't directly support your definition of "reluctant participant."

Actual language used in that case, and "the law":

" Defendant requested the court to instruct the jury that in exercising his right of self-defense he was not required to retreat but could stand his ground or even pursue his attacker if it appeared reasonably necessary, and that he could do so even though he might more easily have gained safety by retreating. Defendant's request, however, is not in accord with the law of self-defense as set out in State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 368, 373, 152 N.W.2d 529, 532:

"It is a general rule that the legal excuse of self-defense is available only to those who act honestly and in good faith. The rule requires (1) the absence of aggression or provocation on the part of the slayer; (2) the actual and honest belief of the slayer that he was in imminent danger of death, great bodily harm, or some felony and it was necessary to take the action he did; (3) the existence of reasonable grounds for such belief; and (4) the duty of the slayer to retreat or avoid the danger if reasonably possible." (Italics supplied.)"

I even gave you a tip, ctrl-F search for reluctant or participant, anyone want to guess how many results? Yep, zero, for either word. A person could decide to try and analogize and describe what the bolded part means, but that would simply be their opinion, not the law. No matter how good of a web page they create to house it.

I cited those things you just tried to "edify" for me, and I did so pages and pages ago, with long, detailed quotes and attached reasoning. I'll now wait for cs to prove me wrong, you clearly can't, haven't, and don't understand enough to even begin the correct analysis.
 
Also, those terms do not "define the phrase" "reluctant participation," as you wrote. If anything, "reluctant participation" is an attempt at lay-defining "absence of aggression or provocation."
Tell you what...take it up with the good people of Minnesota who understand it FAR better than you.
 
Period? Full Stop? Post it. A statute, a court ruling, a jury instruction, anything. Even a real legal treatise (i.e. not one authored by who knows on a concealed carry webpage, a law review article, a treatise on Minnesota law, etc.) Really, anywhere that the words "reluctant" and "participant" are used together regarding self defense. I just gave you a whole lot of rope, good luck.

Tarheel says he is out when he has proven to be the fool or has lost the argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HKI
"Reluctant participation is going to be a precedent set in case law in Minnesota. I'll post it when I can find the time/resources to make that a proven fact." Please, please do this, as I've already told you it isn't. At that point when you make the realization that I'm right, and that you have been unreasonable, we can move on and be friends. I know you are up to that, and I know tarheel never could. How about we agree to let this thread die, until you prove that I'm wrong, and you are right, and that it is a "proven fact." Just be sure to actually come back when you fail, don't be a pussy.

So the burden is to actually have the words "reluctant participation" exactly written out?

Because that is just dumb. The spirit and meaning of reluctant participation is what I'm referring to which is clearly what matters. Whether it says tomat-oh or tomat-ah is completely irrelevant if the meaning is clear.

Tarheel already posted cases that are applicable and show this.

At this point, I think you're being rather petty, HKI. We can still be friends and have a beer at fight bar but I think you're being a bit silly on this.
 
This thread is longer than my dong.

Holy schnikes.
I think it involves a lot of interesting and sometimes heated issues; among them:

* Guns
* Self defense laws can be very different state by state
* At what point does a person go from defending himself to committing a crime

If this case goes to trial, it will be interesting to see if the jury debates as many days (16) as this thread is long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HKI and BrianNole09
Tell you what...take it up with the good people of Minnesota who understand it FAR better than you.

Did you ever answer whether you live in Minnesota? If not, why are you trying to speak for them? And are you really pretending that the citizens of a state somehow know the specific laws, including affirmative defenses and their requirements well enough to be considered authorities on the subject? Geesh.
 
So the burden is to actually have the words "reluctant participation" exactly written out?

Because that is just dumb. The spirit and meaning of reluctant participation is what I'm referring to which is clearly what matters. Whether it says tomat-oh or tomat-ah is completely irrelevant if the meaning is clear.

Tarheel already posted cases that are applicable and show this.

At this point, I think you're being rather petty, HKI. We can still be friends and have a beer at fight bar but I think you're being a bit silly on this.

Are you serious? What a complete cop out. You've claimed it "IS THE LAW" countless times, so has Tar, and now both of you, secretly figuring out you are wrong, are both attempting to run away, while still claiming victory. And again, you must remember that 14 of these pages was not about "reluctant participation," and I've told you that you can subjectively describe it as however you want. My point has, all along, been to point out that you and tar and demanding what the law is and where it must apply, but you aren't correct in your analysis of doing so. The first 14 pages were about where the retreat and subjective fear must be applied. You both claimed it must, BY LAW, be applied when he goes back to the car. My entire point has been to present actual law, to demonstrate that it does not require that, and that it can be applied AFTER he returns from the car. Unlike you I don't demand that the law requires you to apply it then, just that the law allows a juror to apply it then. You both claim otherwise, and that it isn't your opinion, but THE LAW.

And now both of you have claimed that "spirit and meaning" or "what Minnesootan's say" somehow carries more legal weight than actual law and instructions to the jury, which I've provided many times. At least be gracious in your realization that you were wrong. I happily do so when I am.

Remember, this was your last post before copping out and trying to save face:

Jesus Christ. You're going to make me go all out effort for a damn HROT thread and find you Minnesota case law, aren't you?

I'll have to come back to it once I have the time to. Reluctant participation is going to be a precedent set in case law in Minnesota. I'll post it when I can find the time/resources to make that a proven fact.

And you posted that on the same page that the actual law was posted, therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that you didn't agree with what I posted as the actual law, and still wanted to prove "reluctant participation" as the law. And no, tarheel didn't "already post cases," I did. I did many many pages ago and more than once, you didn't care then, he didn't care then. Why? Because you clearly didn't think I was posting the correct law. Now, you do, after I've convinced you and you couldn't disprove me.

Lastly: In a thread where you've repeatedly claimed that the self defense analysis MUST BE your way, because IT. IS. The. LAW., saying shit like, "Whether it says tomat-oh or tomat-ah is completely irrelevant if the meaning is clear" is absolutely crazy. The law is one of the most specific, technical, often arcane areas of our lives that we have. We don't have a law that says, "don't speed," we have very technical laws that describe the act of driving and rates of measure to quantify such speed and limits therein. Why? Because of due process, notice, the Constitution. Because the government can't just say, "tomat-oh, tomat-ah" and pretend that is sufficient. You said this wasn't your opinion, but law. Go ahead and run away from that. No prosecutor, Judge or defense attorney in a case like this is going to allow "tomato/tomata" claims of the law in to the case. Even though you've claimed otherwise. We have those jury instructions for a reason, and I posted the law on that, you just didn't care, because you somehow convinced yourself that "reluctant participation" was two words that better fit than "aggressor" and "provocation." That is the TL/DR of this entire thread, you specifically grasped two words to prove your point, and steadfastly refused to believe they aren't the actual two words.
 
Last edited:
https://www.postbulletin.com/news/p...cle_9aa3679c-6d33-11e9-b946-53dcc98fba21.html

The trial of Weiss is ongoing. Some interesting testimony presented in this article. It says Weiss followed the Cavalier on foot after the car backed into him. From the way the article presents things, it doesn't mentioned Weiss returning to his car to retrieve his gun as I believe had previously been a claim.

The most interesting quote of the story from an officer that testified: "While Thompson said he would draw it to defend himself or others, he clarified that civilians and officers have different requirements when using a firearm, noting that civilians have a duty to retreat."

If he didn't try to retreat to the safety of his vehicle and simply shot the guy after having pursued him, I'd find Weiss guilty.
 
Last edited:
Here's another article that has Weiss' testimony. If this account is true where he returned to his car, and was backing away as the victim pursued, I'd find him not guilty.

https://www.postbulletin.com/news/p...cle_91c70bac-6de6-11e9-bf66-033e09dedc0d.html

Based solely on that article’s summary of his testimony it would be clear self defense to me. However, of course it would be during his testimony at trial he has prepared for with lawyers.

I don’t say that to diminish his testimony, only that I would hope his testimony would be clear at this point.

Fascinating, thank you for posting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: longliveCS40
Unless I am interpreting this incorrectly... from the 1st article. Video shows...


Cavalier moves to the parking lot driveway. Weiss is seen getting out of his vehicle and following the Cavalier on foot.

A few moments later, there appear to be two people standing behind Weiss’ vehicle.

Is this not video evidence he retreated? He got the gun out of his car and ended up behind his car... sounds like retreat to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mattski
You can't meet a push in the chest with a bullet. If Iowa was playing Michigan in basketball and some pushing and shoving occurred, you'd be ok with a kid going into the locker room and coming back out with a gun? If your son got into a dispute and some pushing and shoving occurred, the other kid has the right to shoot your son dead???
I don't think so. And neither would you, if you were the father of the victim here.

What would be the appropriate response?

You created a strawman. It's a clearly different situation when 2 guys threaten to beat you, then push you.
 
Unless I am interpreting this incorrectly... from the 1st article. Video shows...


Cavalier moves to the parking lot driveway. Weiss is seen getting out of his vehicle and following the Cavalier on foot.

A few moments later, there appear to be two people standing behind Weiss’ vehicle.

Is this not video evidence he retreated? He got the gun out of his car and ended up behind his car... sounds like retreat to me.

I think it would depend on timing. If he "retreated" back to his car, grabbed the gun out of his glove compartment but then pursued or confronted the victim, he may have a problem. Frankly, whether guilty by law or not, this is the issue I've had about this thing from the start. He got the gun out of his glove compartment which means that he could have gotten into his car and locked the doors until police arrived. He re-inserted himself into the confrontation.

His testimony is that he retrieved the gun from the glove compartment and when he looked up, the two guys were about 5 feet from him. His claim is that he then tried to create space between he and the two guys by moving towards the back of his car. It's possible that's the way it went down...it just seems a bit fishy to me that he grabbed the gun out of the glove compartment and didn't just sit in his car prepared to use it if they tried to enter the vehicle...
 
ADVERTISEMENT