Self-Defense Laws in Minnesota

Estimated reading time: 31 minutes

A person who acts reasonably in self-defense is no criminal. Self-defense is not a crime. It is our right. And that is the broad rule under Minnesota self-defense laws. Across the world and throughout history people recognize this rule. When it comes to self-defense laws that much is simple. Welcome to Self-Defense Attorney Thomas Gallagher’s Guide.

Issues: self-defense laws

In our legal history, our ways of thinking about self-defense attempt to balance competing interests. Self-defense laws in Minnesota reflect these competing interests. self-defense attorneys wrestle with these important issues:

1. bright line vs. totality of circumstances
2. self-help vs. state control
3. accident (lack of intent) vs self-defense
4. position of authority vs. other – police, castle
5. authority of attacker – lawful (police) vs. criminal
6. relationship to favored location – home defense
7. relationship to favored people – defense of other
8. proportionality of response to threat
9. reluctant participant – retreat outside home
10. reasonable person standard
11. reasonable belief vs. historical fact (hindsight bias)

Is there a simple definition of legal self-defense?

No. That is the most asked question. People wish for simplicity, understandably. But there is no bright-line test in the law, when it comes to self-defense. And that means that every time a person, police officer, home owner, mother or father, uses force in self-defense; that person is at risk. We risk criminal prosecution under Minnesota’s self-defense laws.

Reasonable force: response to apparent threat

You can help yourself, and your self-defense attorney, by knowing the law. In Minnesota, a person acts in self-defense when she reasonably believes force is necessary; and uses only the level of force reasonably necessary to prevent the bodily harm feared. State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392, 399 (Minn. 2001).

And Minnesota Statutes § 609.06, subd. 1 (3) codifies the right to self-defense. So, reasonable force is lawful, “without the other’s consent,” “when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person.” Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd. 1(3).

Four elements of the defense outside the home, and not in defense of another, appear in Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd. 1 (3):

(1) the absence of aggression or provocation on the part of the defendant;
(2) the defendant’s actual and honest belief that he or she was in imminent danger of … 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.

State v. Basting, 572 N.W.2d 281, 285-86 (Minn.1997).

Though not an element, an additional requirement for claims of self-defense and defense of others: “The degree of force used in self-defense must not exceed that which appears to be necessary to a reasonable person under similar circumstances.” Id. at 286; see also State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392, 403 (Minn. 2001).

Reasonable Force

What is “reasonable force?” Thousands of court cases discuss this, in many fact patterns. But the level of force must be proportionate to the reasonable perception of threat level at that time. And your self-defense attorney must help the jury understand the law. See:

The reasonable person, in Minnesota criminal law.

The law focuses on the subjective perspective of the accused. But the situation as perceived by the accused must have been “reasonable” under the circumstances at that time.

Is Minnesota a duty to retreat state?

Generally, yes. But the exceptions largely swallow the rule. And the rule should be repealed. A discussion of the duty to retreat appears in some detail below. But we can make a few quick observations about it now.

Legal Basis: Minnesota statutes don’t have a duty to retreat. It’s a product of judicial opinions over time. But the legislature could pass a law to eliminate it.

Situational: Minnesota Appellate court opinions that the Minnesota duty to retreat does not apply inside the home (“Castle Doctrine”), or reasonable force in the defense of others. In addition, it’s implicit in Minnesota statutes and caselaw that police officers, and perhaps others who are required to initiate force, cannot logically be said to have a “duty to retreat” before using force in self-defense.

Fairness Issue: A legal “duty to retreat” is not only an artificial rule unfair to people facing violent attacks, it allows the prosecutor to repeat the same factor, twice; first in the guise of “duty to retreat,” and then again as “unreasonable.” The end result is more innocent people defending themselves from violence facing criminal charges when they used lawful self-defense.

We see a few other nuances in cases about Minnesota’s “duty to retreat,” discussed below.

Hindsight Bias & Point-of-View

A problem: Hindsight bias is the root of evil. People seem to second-guess the past actions of others, from the comfort of their safety.

Solution: The law reminds us to adopt the point-of-view of the defendant. So the question is: “was the defendant’s perception and response, reasonable under the circumstances he knew at the time?” But often, important information learned later by police or others, was unknown to the defender, at the time.

Self-defense events must be viewed from the perspective of the putative self-defender. So among the all the people present, the overriding issue is what did the self-defender perceive, and reasonably believe at the time? Notice the this includes two components” 1. spatial positioning of the defender; and 2. time positioning, under conditions of extreme stress and urgent time pressure. Time and space.

This is inherent in every self-defense event. And a Minnesota Statutes Section on self-defense use of deadly force by police officers made this explicit:

“Subd. 1a. Legislative intent. The legislature hereby finds and declares the following:
(3) that the decision by a peace officer to use deadly force shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using deadly force …”

Minn. Stat. § 609.066, Subd. 1a (3) (2025)

And:

“Subd. 2. Use of deadly force.
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary: (1) to …

(b) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger the person poses to self if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that the person does not pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to the peace officer or to another under the threat criteria in paragraph (a), clause (1), items (i) to (iii).”

Minn. Stat. § 609.066, Subd. 2 (2025)

A self-defense attorney knows that hindsight bias & point-of-view are the most important, pivotal issues in most self-defense cases.

Reduce legal risk: self-defense laws

Sometimes prosecutors accuse innocent people. That can result in a wrongful conviction. And when that happens, the innocent person suffers; and the evil of that false conviction radiates outward, damaging families, children, our community.

In the end, false convictions destroy us all. A lot is at stake for every one of us. Self-defense laws matter, whether we are a:

• person
• police officer
• martial arts practitioner
• student in a self-defense class
• gun owner with a home defense weapon or carry permit
• gun carry permit holder facing felony Assault 2 charges, fear of gun, or
• kid facing a bully at school

We should take the necessary time to learn about the law of self-defense. And the experience of a self-defense attorney has some food for thought, here.

Self-defense, of self, or others, is a legal defense to many, though not all, criminal charges. From ancient times, human laws recognize the right to self-defense as a basic human right.

“Self-defense is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the laws of society.”

William Blackstone

Common Law acknowledged this right. And Minnesota self-defense statutes incorporate the common law and natural rights to self-defense. See, Minnesota Statutes § 609.06.

The natural law right to life – the right to stay alive – is the right to self-defense, and the right to defend others. This is referenced in the foundational document of the United States of America, The Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Totality of circumstances: self defense laws

If there is no bright-line separating criminal conduct from lawful self-defense; how does self-defense law ask us to separate legal self-defense from unlawful use of force?

The law tells us to use a totality of the circumstances test. See, Minnesota Statutes § 609.06 “Authorized use of force,” Subdivision 1. (“… reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other’s consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist …”). In other words, whether force used in self-defense was lawful and not criminal depends upon the situation, and situational factors. What factors?

Self-help vs state-control

Personal responsibility: One of the core issues implicit in self-defense law is the conflict between self-help and state control. With the rise of the government power and control in recent decades; the attitude of the self-defense laws towards self-help is increasingly restrictive of individual human rights.

Could this be a product of ruling-class privilege and socioeconomic status? You don’t need to be a self-defense attorney to know that the affluent and more educated people have less need for personal self-defense, and so may value it less. And yet these are the people who have the most influence on legislation, the legal system — even juries. Some perceive that the result is an elite bias against the common person.

Public safety has been put at risk by the legal degradation of self-defense. The law has become more hostile to people acting to protect themselves, their children, their homes. As result, it’s important to know the law first, and later to know a good self-defense attorney.

Police: no legal duty to protect

On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated the obvious, that police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens from third party harm.

See, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1989).

Position of authority of Defender

If we look at a typical scenario with two people in a violent conflict, one is the attacker. And the other person is defending against an attack.

One important factor is whether one of the two combatants is in a position of authority. Position of authority examples could include: police officers, security guards, parent protecting a child, person in their home, etc. Because of their role, one person may have a greater legal claim to legitimate use of force in self-defense. That role could be based on occupation (police officer), situation (defense of other), or location (home defense). Their role gives them greater authority to use force in self-defense, other factors being equal.

This is clear from Minnesota Statutes § 609.06,

“When authorized. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other’s consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
(1) when used by a public officer or one assisting a public officer under the public officer’s direction:
(a) in effecting a lawful arrest; or
(b) in the execution of legal process; or
(c) in enforcing an order of the court; or
(d) in executing any other duty imposed upon the public officer by law …”

Minn. Stat. § 609.06, Subd. 1

Police vs. private defenders: to effect arrest

Police officers are required to arrest people as part of the performance of their duties. As a result, police have no “duty to retreat” prior to lawful use of reasonable force. (See, discussion of duty to retreat, below.) Compare that to the legal authority of a private person to arrest another person:

629.37 WHEN PRIVATE PERSON MAY MAKE ARREST.
“A private person may arrest another:
(1) for a public offense committed or attempted in the arresting person’s presence;
(2) when the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the arresting person’s presence; or
(3) when a felony has in fact been committed, and the arresting person has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.”

Minn. Stat. § 629.37 (2025)

And:

629.38 PRIVATE PERSON TO DISCLOSE CAUSE OF ARREST.
“Before making an arrest a private person shall inform the person to be arrested of the cause of the arrest and require the person to submit. The warning required by this section need not be given if the person is arrested while committing the offense or when the person is arrested on pursuit immediately after committing the offense. If a person has committed a felony, a private person may break open an outer or inner door or window of a dwelling house to make the arrest if, before entering, the private person informs the person to be arrested of the intent to make the arrest and the private person is then refused admittance.”

Minn, Stat. § 629.38 (2025)

As well as:

629.39 PRIVATE PERSON MAKING ARREST TO DELIVER ARRESTEE TO JUDGE OR PEACE OFFICER.
“A private person who arrests another for a public offense shall take the arrested person before a judge or to a peace officer without unnecessary delay. If a person arrested escapes, the person from whose custody the person has escaped may immediately pursue and retake the escapee, at any time and in any place in the state. For that purpose, the pursuer may break open any door or window of a dwelling house if the pursuer informs the escapee of the intent to arrest the escapee and the pursuer is refused admittance.”

Minn. Stat. § 629.39 (2025)

The risks associated with citizen’s arrest are beyond the scope of this article. But note that a person attempting a citizen’s arrest may not only risk a violent encounter, but also may expose themselves to both criminal and civil, legal liability. So while prudence and caution should be employed, not only should one be aware of the limits of legal authority; here we are emphasizing the importance of role, and legal authority of the actor, with the examples of police vs private person.

A statute, Minn. Stat. § 629.34 authorizes police officers to arrest without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe the person committed a felony, or non-felony domestic crime within 72 hours, even if not in their presence.

And another statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.06 authorizes “public officers” (broader than “peace officers”) to use reasonable force for lawful arrests, preventing escapes, and enforcing court orders:

609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
Subdivision 1. When authorized. “Except as otherwise provided in subdivisions 2 to 4, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other’s consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
(1) when used by a public officer or one assisting a public officer under the public officer’s direction:
(i) in effecting a lawful arrest; or
(ii) in the execution of legal process; or
(iii) in enforcing an order of the court; or(iv) in executing any other duty imposed upon the public officer by law; …”

Minn. Stat. § 609.06, Subd. 1 (1) (2025)

And:

Subd. 2. Use of deadly force. “(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:
(1) to … or

(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony and the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm to another person under the threat criteria in clause (1), items (i) to (iii), unless immediately apprehended.”

Minn. Stat. § 609.066, Subd. 2 (2025)

So, police officers are authorized and expected to use force to make lawful arrests, with no duty of retreat. And when they do, the also have the right to self-defense. But their role as police officers, and the nature of their job, reframes the self-defense totality of circumstances. More on arrest law:

Unlawful Arrest and Illegal Evidence.

Authority of attacker: self defense laws

Another factor is whether the attacker (person initiating force) was: in a position of authority, authority-neutral, or a criminal. This may color how the jury (or other fact-finder in a trial) views the circumstances. Though the jury can consider this beyond the letter of the statute, Minnesota Statutes § 609.06, Subd. 2, states:

“Deadly force used against peace officers. Deadly force may not be used against peace officers who have announced their presence and are performing official duties at a location where a person is committing a crime or an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult.”

Minn. Stat. § 609.06, Subd. 2

Relationship to favored location: Castle Doctrine

Minnesota self-defense laws favor home defense over self-defense outside the home when it comes to a “duty-to-retreat.” We sometimes use the term “Defense of Dwelling” to describe enhanced self-defense rights at home. One of the most frequently asked questions for a self-defense attorney is “does Minnesota have a Castle Doctrine?” And the answer is, yes, though not as robust as in many other states.

“Your home is your castle. There is no place to retreat, from one’s home.” Whether we call it the Castle Doctrine or not, the government normally can’t claim a duty-to-retreat when the accused asserts self-defense in the home.

There may be other favored locations; for example your workplace (vs. someone who is not a co-worker), or your car (vs. someone not a guest in your car). But in Minnesota they say you have a “duty to retreat” outside the home, even at other favored locations. Even so, this must be a factor in the totality of circumstances.

Currently Minnesota Statutes provide limited legal protection to victims protecting themselves from violent attack, compared to other states. For example, “defense of dwelling” legal rights may end at the walls and doorways of your home. And some court cases define the boundaries of the home where there is no duty to retreat. In one case, the court considered an apartment hallway. State v. Devens, 852 NW2d 255 (Minn. 2014).

Principles of trespass law can help us understand self-defense laws. Does the person belong there? If not, do they know or should they know they should not be there? If previously an authorized guest, was the person then on notice that they should leave?

Though this applies not only in use of deadly force situations, Minnesota Statutes § 609.065 “Justifiable taking of life” states:

“The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor’s place of abode.”

Minn. Stat. § 609.065

Relationship to favored people: defense of other

The defense of self-defense includes “defense of another.” The defender is using reasonable force against an imminent threat of force against someone other than the defender. The other person could be a complete stranger, anyone.

Whether the defender is in a position of authority (i.e. police officer) or in a special relationship (i.e. parent protecting a child) to the targeted person, could color how people view defense of another.

The Minnesota Supreme Court in a 2024 case ruled that any “duty to retreat” outside the home does not apply where the defendant acted in defense of others, because such a duty would effectively negate the right to defend another. State v. Valdez, 12 NW 2d 191 (Minn. Supreme Court 2024) (“The right to defend another is logically incompatible with imposing a duty to retreat on the defendant.)

And generally, the jury (or other finder-of-fact in a trial) may judge less harshly where the defender was acting in defense of another.

For example, see, Minnesota Statutes § 609.06, Subdivision 1:

“When authorized. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other’s consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person …”

Minn. Stat. § 609.06, Subd. 1

Duty to Retreat: Outside Home, Not defending another

Minnesota’s self-defense law includes a “duty to retreat” if outside the “place of abode,” and not acting in defense of another. So, otherwise, a person facing a threat of bodily harm has a duty to retreat where practical; before responding with “reasonable force.” Compare, Minnesota Statutes §609.065, discussed below.

But a sudden attack or multiple attackers can make retreat too dangerous. In order to protect you, or your loved ones; you may have no safe alternative to using force in self-defense. But, the law requires use of force to be reasonable under the circumstances; even where no legal duty to retreat. As a result, the possibility of safe retreat remains a factor that a jury could consider, even where no legal “duty to retreat” applies.

But compare the contrary example in the crime of Fleeing Police — a legal duty to avoid retreat.

No duty to retreat in home; defending other

The surviving self-defender has a duty to retreat in Minnesota self-defense law when not at home, and not in defense of another. Your self-defense attorney must know this law.

Defense of Another: But we have no “duty to retreat” when using reasonable force in “defense of another” (since running away while the other person, e.g., your child, is left in danger, is unreasonable.)

Defense of Dwelling: Under the so-called “Castle Doctrine,” a person need not retreat from his home before acting in self-defense. State v. Johnson, 719 N.W.2d 619, 622, 629 (Minn. 2006). The home is “a place critical for the protection of the family.” State v. Carothers, 594 N.W.2d 897, 900 (Minn.1999). One’s home is a sanctuary. “Requiring retreat from the home before acting in self-defense would require one to leave one’s safest place.” Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d at 401.

No Duty to Retreat for Police

Police officers are required to arrest people as part of the performance of their duties. As a result, police have no “duty to retreat,” since a duty to retreat would be logically incompatible. See, State v. Carothers, 594 NW 2d 897 (Minn. Supreme Court 1999) (a duty to retreat, which would logically incompatible with statute authorizing a person to prevent a felony in the home), and State v. Valdez, 12 NW 2d 191 (Minn. Supreme Court 2024) (“The right to defend another is logically incompatible with imposing a duty to retreat on the defendant.)

For purposes of the applicability of a “duty to retreat” does it matter whether the defender fits a statutory definition of “peace officer?” It depends. It could matter. Or it might not, depending upon the situation.

Consider the job of a person working security in a bar. A bouncer keeps peace and order in a public place where people are drinking alcohol, and sometimes becoming intoxicated, and violent. But a bar bouncer is not usually a “peace officer” (Minn. Stat. § 609.066, Subd. 2) or even a “public officer” (Minn. Stat. § 609.06, Subd. 1 (1)). So any statutes providing legal protection preconditioned on a statutory definition of “peace officer” or “public officer” would not help the bouncer facing a criminal investigation. This may seem like a technicality, but it can be a real problem, especially if it’s you.

But, on the other hand, self-defense law includes statutory citizen arrest powers, trespass and other law, and is mostly about the reasonable use of force under the “totality of circumstances.” So, if your job is to ask drunks to leave the bar, or to stop a bar fight, any “duty to retreat” is diminished, perhaps to the vanishing point. See, State v. Valdez, 12 NW 2d 191 (Minn. Supreme Court 2024) (“The right to defend another is logically incompatible with imposing a duty to retreat on the defendant.)

Now change the fact pattern from bar bouncer to an office security guard, a private security person. And we have government employees who don’t always fit the statutory definition of “public officer” or “peace officer.” And we have multiple statutory definitions of the same term “peace officer” in various Minnesota statutes. (Currently Minnesota has 440 statutes referencing the term “peace officer.”) Add to that the many types and categories of federal security employees, military, federal law enforcement officers, including those of ICE immigration officers, Department of Homeland Security officers, FBI officers, etc. So, we may need to look at federal statutes, in addition to Minnesota statutes, depending upon the case.

So in sum, a person with job duties that require the initiation of the use of force, whether asking trespassers to leave or forceful arrest, will have a diminished “duty to retreat,” and that fact will be an important factor in “the totality of circumstances.” And for some people, like Minnesota “peace officers,” “public officers,” and federal law enforcement, various Minnesota and federal statutes may further eliminate any “duty to retreat,” and help emphasize legal protection for people doing these jobs under a “totality of the circumstances” analysis by a jury or other fact-finder.

Proportionality of force: response to threat

Bias against The Other: People apply the self-defense laws. And all people have bias. We need to be aware first, to then remedy that bias. Many people are hostile to “other people’s” use of force in self-defense and exhibit that bias. Some may look excuses to blame the survivor of a violent attack. They sit in judgment in the comfort of their safety; with all the time in the world to reflect in retrospect.

The prosecuting attorney urges the jury to condemnation. If they can, they may urge that the force used in self-defense as disproportionate to the threat, and therefore unreasonable. Force used in self-defense must be “reasonable” under Minnesota self-defense laws. See, Minnesota Statutes § 609.06, Subdivision 1 (“… reasonable force may be used …”). So, the self-defense attorney must help the jury spot the facts and circumstances which show the person’s use of force in self-defense was reasonable and reasonably proportionate under the circumstances, including split-second, time pressure.

What is reasonable in the circumstances? The proportionality of the force used compared to the threat presented, is one key factor. How can we break down proportionality? It can include the level of force, as well the timing of it.

Level of force continuum and force multipliers: The level of force is scaled, on a continuum, from hardly any to deadly force. A weapon, or other force multiplier can be used in self-defense. Though misleading, people often judge the level of force, after-the-fact based on the level of damage inflicted.

This is a trap in applying self-defense laws; since the legal question is always what was the reasonable belief of the defendant at the time.

Proportionate to threat perceived: Weapon or not, the level of force should be proportionate to the threat reasonably perceived by the accused, at the time. The lawful self-defender seeks to stop the threat presented by the attacker; not to exact revenge, teach a lesson, or to repel insult. More:

Disparity of Force and Self-Defense

Justifications in self-defense laws

Minnesota’s self-defense laws (cited above) explicitly mention several justifications for the authorized use of force. And these include the following of more general application when resisting:

• an offense against the person
• a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with real or personal property
• great bodily harm or death, or
• preventing the commission of a felony in actor’s home

The self-defense attorney will look for one or more of these in the facts of every case where the use of defensive force may be an issue. For example, when defending someone from a Obstruction, Resisting Arrest charge under Minn. Stat. § 609.50, the defendant may have been “resisting an offense against the person” by a police officer. If so, depending upon other circumstances, that could be lawful use of force in self-defense.

The Use-of-Force Continuum

Proportionate — in response to what? The response should be scaled, in some reasonable proportion to the threat. Examples of threats of deadly force include attacks by:

• closed fists hitting your head
• knife-wielding assailant 25 feet away
• someone with a firearm 100 feet away
• more than one person (multiple attackers)
• a vehicle attack

Deadly force is on one end of the level of force continuum. The Minnesota self-defense laws on the use of deadly force demonstrate this.

What is Deadly Force?

Is the use of a firearm always deadly force? No.

“It is deadly force to discharge a firearm in the direction of another person. Minn. Stat. § 609.066, subd. 1. Otherwise, deadly force is force that the actor either uses with the purpose, or should reasonably know creates a substantial risk, of causing death or great bodily harm. Id. As such, simply firing a gun into the distance does not meet the definition of deadly force.”

State v. Marczak, nonprec., A19-0638 (Minn. Court of Appeals 2020)

So, the use of a firearm in self-defense could be “the use of deadly force,” depending upon what happened. Whether the gun was legally possessed or not is not relevant to that question.

Outside “the actor’s place of abode,” deadly force may be reasonable force depending upon the reasonably perceived threat. But no one wants to end up in a case where a jury has to decide “was it reasonable?” given the threat presented at the time.

And yet, even deadly force is reasonable and lawful:

“when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor’s place of abode.”

Minn. Stat. § 609.065.

So, deadly force is authorized by this statute to prevent “the commission of a felony in the actor’s place of abode,” or to resist or prevent great bodily harm or death to self or another, regardless of location. Note the difference.

Deadly force – what is it and why does it matter? Minnesota Statutes authorize the use of force generally, in certain situations:

“[R]easonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other’s consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist: …

(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or

(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property …

Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd. 1 (2025)

This provision is modified by another entitled “Justifiable Taking of Life:”

“The intentional taking of a life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor’s place of abode.”

Minn. Stat. § 609.065 (2025)

“Taken together, these provisions establish that reasonable force may be used when a person reasonably believes that he or she is resisting an offense against a person or a trespass upon lawfully held property. This “reasonable force” includes deadly force only when the offense against a person involves great bodily harm or death or is used to prevent the commission of a felony in one’s home.” State v. Pendleton, 567 NW 2d 265 (Minn. Supreme Court 1997).

And another Minnesota Statute defines deadly force, at least when police use of force happens. But we can use it to illuminate a general definition of deadly force:

“Deadly force defined. For the purposes of this section, ‘deadly force’ means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a firearm … in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force. …”

Minn. Stat. § 609.066, Subdivision 1

So the above helps us define what “deadly force” is. But why does it matter?

We have laws – both statutes and judge-made doctrines – that attempt to define what use of force in self-defense is lawful, and when. And we have additional laws that try to delineate what constitutes “deadly force” and when it may be lawfully employed to defend self or others.

And the level of “force” as well as “deadly force” must be weighed on both sides of the equation – both by the attacker and by the defender. For example, if someone uses deadly force to attempt to stop what appears to be a vehicle being used as deadly force to cause the defender “great bodily harm or death;” then we must evaluate the force used by each. And when we do that evaluation, the law requires the jury’s post hoc review to evaluate the defenders reasonable belief at the time, in the moment, not historical facts later known to others.

Goldilocks Timing: not too soon, not too late

Because it is responsive, the timing of the defender’s use of force is important. If it comes too soon or too late, it may become a crime rather than lawful self-defense.

Too soon? Under Minnesota self-defense laws, the threat must reasonably appear to be imminent, meaning immediate or about to happen.

Imminent threat: To use force to defend against a threat that is not imminent may be viewed as unreasonable, as either premature or as long after the threat was past. Whether the threat is imminent or not, is an aspect of the reasonableness of the use of force. And that is why many view so-called “duty-to-retreat” jury instructions as unfair.

Conflict: Retreat vs. Reasonableness

The duty-to-retreat law gives the prosecutor an unfair advantage. They emphasize something that is already part of the reasonableness test for self-defense. (Because retreat might be reasonable, or not, in any given case.)

Double counting: The judicially invented “duty to retreat” in some self-defense situations requires unnecessary proof of an element that can be inferred from “reasonableness.” Why should the prosecution have two ways to talk about the same thing; and two jury instructions repeating the same thing? This shifts a heavy burden onto the defendant. It is unfair to the accused — a modern abomination that should be repealed. Your self-defense attorney must be alert to prevent this. And this is the reason for the rise of so-called “stand your ground” laws in many states in recent years.

The U.S. Supreme Court has criticized ossified “duty to retreat” rules:

“Concrete cases or illustrations stated in the early law in conditions very different from the present, like the reference to retreat in Coke, Third Inst. 55, and elsewhere, have had a tendency to ossify into specific rules without much regard for reason. … Rationally the failure to retreat is a circumstance to be considered with all the others in order to determine whether the defendant went farther than he was justified in doing; not a categorical proof of guilt. The law has grown, and even if historical mistakes have contributed to its growth it has tended in the direction of rules consistent with human nature. Many respectable writers agree that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense. That has been the decision of this Court. Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him.”

Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 343 (1921) (Holmes, J.)

Threat stops, use of force stops

Too late? Use of force after the threat is over might not be reasonable use of force. For example, deadly force against a home invader coming through your window might be reasonable. But using deadly force against the invader fifty feet away, running away, might not be.

The lawful self-defender uses force to stop the threat, then stops using force once the threat is over. The defender scales down force as the threat scales down; for example holding a burglar for police at gunpoint. In that example, if the burglar fled in a way not immediately threatening; the defender should not use deadly force to stop the fleeing criminal. (See, citizen’s arrest statute, Minnesota Statutes § 629.39, discussed above.)

Real life problems: Applying the self-defense laws in real life situations, under stress, is challenging. And a jury may find it challenging to reconstruct past events from second-hand, biased information.

In theory, use of force stops after the threat is over.

In real life, it’s often difficult to know whether the threat is over. If possible, re-initiate alternatives. Leaving the scene, calling 911, bolting the door, or otherwise avoid the attacker’s potential renewed threat. And prepare for the renewed threat if necessary. If safe to do so, consider rendering First Aid to the injured attacker, after calling 911.

And in real life, with fear and adrenaline and the realities of physics and physical movement, stopping can be judged in the comfort of hindsight, differently than from the real life experience in the moment of the stressed defender. We don’t have the benefit of slow motion replays or a pause button, in real life.

Police & Self-Defense Training: Trainers teach the use of force to “stop the threat” when using force in self-defense. Our intent using force in self-defense, is not to kill or injure. Rather it is only to stop the threat. Then, after the threat is over, stop the use of force. So when injury or death is the result of the lawful self-defense; it is not the specific intent of the person acting in self-defense. The lawful self-defender does not intend to harm; but only intends to stop the threat.

We train our police officers to shoot the center of mass when shooting in self-defense; continuously, until the threat stops; and to shoot a person armed with a knife within striking distance. (See, the “Tueller Drill.”)

Training for all who use a firearm in self-defense is the same: “Stop the threat. Then stop.” And the lawful self-defender has two layers of challenges. First, survive the physical attack. Then, survive the legal second-guessers.

And you benefit when your self-defense attorney has self-defense training. In addition, expert witnesses on self-defense can help the jury understand.

Duty to Render Aid If Safe

Self-defense training should drill the problem of multiple attackers, especially multiple attackers hanging back out of sight or at some distance. The untrained tendency is for the target of the attack to develop tunnel vision, after an adrenaline dump, and focus only on the most immediate threat. And that could lead to the targeted person surviving the initial attacker, only to be severely injured or killed by other attackers soon after.

Every situation is different. But leaving the location of the attack and calling 911 for police help, quickly may be the default safest action. If it is clearly safe in the situation to do so, however, rendering aid to the attacker you injured in self-defense can be a good idea for more than two big reasons. First, it helps define you as the “good guy” doing what society views as good behavior. Second, Minnesota law requires it, when safe to do so.

“Safe to do so?” Yes, that too will be subject to the hindsight bias of other sitting in judgment of you after the fact, just like other self-defense issues. We’ll just do the best we can, as ever.

What Minnesota law on rendering aid? Here:

“Subdivision 1. Duty to assist. A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person. Reasonable assistance may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel. A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.”

Minn. Stat. §604A.01, GOOD SAMARITAN LAW.

And if a firearm is discharged causing injury:

“Subd. 2. Duty to render aid. (a) A person who discharges a firearm and knows or has reason to know that the discharge has caused bodily harm to another person, shall:
(1) immediately investigate the extent of the person’s injuries; and
(2) render immediate reasonable assistance to the injured person.

(b) A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a crime and may be sentenced as follows:
(1) if the injured person suffered death or great bodily harm as a result of the discharge, to imprisonment for not more than two years … ;
(2) if the injured person suffered substantial bodily harm as a result of the discharge, to imprisonment for not more than one year and one day … ;
(3) otherwise, to imprisonment for not more than 364 days …

Subd. 4. Defense. It is an affirmative defense to a charge under this section if the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant failed to investigate or render assistance … because the defendant reasonably perceived that these actions could not be taken without a significant risk of bodily harm to the defendant or others.”

Minn. Stat. § 609.662, SHOOTING VICTIM; DUTY TO RENDER AID

Reluctant participant; duty to retreat?

The lawful self-defender is a “reluctant participant;” and the more reluctant the better. Why? To be a lawful self-defender, the self-defense laws in Minnesota require the use of force in self-defense to be reasonable.

And they assert a duty-to-retreat outside the home, unless defending others. “Duty to retreat” means that if there is a way to retreat from physical conflict; the defender must retreat, rather than volunteer for the conflict.

The lawful self-defender should verbally communicate and physically act to retreat. Criminal attackers frequently use words to deter onlookers from interceding. A “roll-a-drunk” robber outside a bar may yell at the would-be victim “where’s that $20 you owe me!” before the physical attack, to confuse bystanders as well as intimidate the target.

So the lawful self-defender should be loud and verbal about wanting to avoid physical conflict: “I don’t want any trouble! Don’t come any closer! I’m calling police! I am ready to defend myself!” She can say this, ideally, while backing away, running away, driving away, or leaving if safe to do so. No insult is worth a fight, or a criminal charge.

Prosecution tactics: Every self-defense attorney had heard prosecutors will argue “two conflicts” – to attempt to break one conflict into part one and part two. Then they concede self-defense in part one; but claim the defendant then re-initiated a second conflict as an angry aggressor, not a lawful self-defender.

This tactic concedes that in the “initial conflict” the person did respond with reasonable force to an imminent threat, but argues that in the “second conflict” there was no longer an imminent threat, so the continuing use of force was therefore unreasonable. This tactic is a call to micro-analyze past events, frame by frame, from the comfort of hindsight in a stress-free environment. But to do so violates a foundational principle of criminal law. Given the severity of labeling a person a criminal, we are required to view the events in controversy through the eyes of the Defendant, under the totality of the circumstances at the time, under the stress of the moment, without any benefit of hindsight. There is no pause button in the real world.

Your pure-heart: Demonstrating your reluctance to participate in conflict can have two good effects. It may deter the would-be attacker. Otherwise, observers can perceive your reluctance. Make clear that you are a reluctant participant under the self-defense laws. Help your self-defense attorney help you.

If possible, the lawful self-defender should call 911 on his or her cell phone to request immediate help. The 911 call can also contemporaneously record the audio of the reluctant defender and the belligerent.

And, you may want to demonstrate that you are a reluctant participant even in your own home.

“There, but for the Grace of God, go I.”

Reasonable belief vs. historical fact

Point-of-view: In a criminal case, the trial issue is “did the accused act criminally?” What matters most is what the accused reasonably believed at the time. See, Minnesota Statutes § 609.06, Subdivision 1 (“… when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist …”). That is because criminal law requires some level of criminal intent, before there can be a crime.

If a person believed something to be true (subjective), and a person in his or her shoes would reasonably believe it (objective); then that will usually decide in the minds of others whether there was criminal intent. This is important for many reasons.

One big reason is that every person witnessing an event has their own unique point-of-view, their own perception, influenced by many things. But for purposes of self-defense laws, the perspective that matters is that of the accused. Both the subjective belief and the objective facts must be viewed from the point-of-view of the self-defender, at the moment of the use of force.

Subjective, plus reasonable belief

If a person feels threatened; then they have a subjective belief that they are under threat. But is that perception reasonable? In other words, would “a reasonable person in the defendant’s shoes” feel threatened in the same situation? If so, then the defendant’s subjective belief that she was under threat, was a reasonable belief.

What if it later turns out that the perceived threat was not really there after all? What if the accused person perceived a threat, say a weapon, but later found out that there was no weapon?

The reasonable mistake: Could a person be a lawful self-defender even though she used deadly force against someone she thought had a weapon but actually did not? The answer is “yes.” Reasonable means “not perfect in hindsight.”

If the mistaken belief was reasonable at the time, under the circumstances, then the accused could be a lawful self-defender. (But she might possibly be liable for money damages under a civil negligence “preponderance of the evidence” standard, in a civil suit.)

Of course, that kind of mistake puts a person at higher risk of another mistake by the criminal justice system. But your self-defense attorney can help prevent you from becoming another wrongful conviction statistic.

Remember, in State v. Basting, 572 N.W.2d 281, 285-86 (Minn.1997), the Minnesota Supreme Court said that two of the elements of legal self-defense are:

a) SUBJECTIVE: the defendant’s actual and honest belief that he or she was in imminent danger of … bodily harm;
B) OBJECTIVE: the existence of reasonable grounds for that belief.

So both matter.

Justification defense: Self-Defense Laws

Self-defense laws are an example of what legal scholars refer to as a “justification defense.” A justification defense means that there was no crime because the actions of the accused were legally justified under the circumstances. Without the justification circumstance, the act might have been a crime.

Analytically, we have what lawyers term the commission of an act (actus reus), such as use of force, but the act is non-criminal due to legal justification (self-defense).

Affirmative defense: Self-Defense Laws

Self-defense laws characterize this defense as an affirmative one. “Affirmative defenses” in Minnesota generally:

• self-defense attorney gives notice of the defense to the prosecutor before the gross misdemeanor or felony trial;
• burden of production of some evidence supporting self-defense is on the defense; and
• then the burden of proving the defendant did not act in self-defense is on prosecutor, beyond all reasonable doubt.

See, State vs. Baker, 13 NW 2d 401 (Minn. Supreme Court 2024).

Accident (Lack of Intent) vs. Self-Defense

We perceive a logical contradiction between the intentional use-of-force in lawful self-defense, on the one hand, and use-of-force resulting from an unintentional accident, on the other hand. It seems obvious that, what is intentional (self-defense) obviously cannot be unintentional (accident), at the exact same moment.

This is made clear in a case where the, in denying a defendant’s request for an instruction on defense of another (self-defense), the trial court said:

“The request is denied because the defense is inconsistent with the defendant’s own position for one thing. His defense is that he didn’t commit an assault at all because he never intended to do so, it was all accidental. That’s what the defendant himself claims on the stand. He can’t turn around now and say yes, I intentionally did it, he did it in defense of someone else. There is no evidence at all that anyone was, at the time that anyone was in danger of any bodily harm. The request is denied.”

State v. Pacholl, 361 NW2d 463 (Minn. Court of Appeals 1985)

Problem: People who just used deadly force in self-defense were, an instant ago, scared to death — fearing imminent death or great bodily harm. Their mental state is altered by adrenaline, shock. Their excited utterances immediately following are not likely to reflect the truth so much as to reflect their fear and confusion, as thoughts of delirium flow straight out of their mouth. This creates a risk that the lawful self-defender will wrongly be viewed as a criminal. For example the defender may say that the acted in self-defense and it was an accident, even though upon reflection those two things are logically inconsistent. And this is why the defender should avoid talking about it until cooling off and consulting their self-defense attorney.

And yet in real life, events could unfold in a way supporting both defenses, accident and self-defense. For example, a person could be in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm and respond proportionately by grabbing a weapon, in lawful self-defense. And after that, something could happen where the apparent attacker is injured by the weapon as the result of accident (unintentionally).

Another possibility is the defender deploys a weapon in self-defense, for example points a firearm, the firearm is discharges into the perceived attacker, but the defender does not consciously intend to pull the trigger. So the defender perceives the weapon discharging as accidental. But regardless, the defendant did not specifically intend the outcome of the attacker being hit with a projectile.

One more possibility comes up where the defendant is facing multiple criminal charges, e.g. reckless discharge of a firearm and assault. In the sequence of events (two discharges), an accident defense (lack of intent) can apply to one charge, while self-defense could apply to the other charge.

Either-or: It would be easier for a judge or a jury to understand either accident, or self-defense. If the defense is “both,” this may confuse the judge and jury. Of course, we must recognize the evidence, including any statements made by the defender in the immediate aftermath.

“We have repeatedly cautioned trial courts that when a defendant, asserting self-defense, claims that the resulting death was unintentional, CRIMJIG 7.05 is inappropriate and that CRIMJIG 7.06 is likely to better fit the facts of the case. … in State v. Marquardt, this court made it clear that if a defendant claims that he intentionally stabbed the victim in self-defense but without intending to kill the victim, the language in CRIMJIG 7.05 providing, ‘the killing must have been done in the belief that * * *’ is inappropriate because it implies that the defendant must believe it necessary to kill in order for the killing to be justified. 496 N.W.2d 806, 806 n. 1 … , aff’g State v. Marquardt, No. C5-92-985, 1993 WL 3860 (Minn. App. Jan. 5, 1993) (unpublished opinion); State v. Robinson, 536 N.W.2d 1, 2-3 (Minn. 1995); see also State v. Dolbeare, 511 N.W.2d 443, 446 (Minn.1994) (stating “even where death has resulted from a defendant’s action, the judge should use CRIMJIG 7.06 if the defendant’s theory does not include a concession that there was an intent to kill.”).”

State v. Hare, 575 NW2d 828 (Minn. Supreme Court 1998)

For more discussion of the conflict between accident and self-defense, see:

Brandishing, Assault & Self-Defense: Legal Readiness.

Mutual combat: Consent defense & self-defense laws

A related, but different defense is consent. We know this, since people can lawfully use force against each other with consent in sporting events, martial arts training, and so on. See, the main self-defense statute, Minnesota Statutes § 609.06, Subd. 1 (“… reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other’s consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist …”). So mutual combat, or use of reasonable force with consent, can be lawful. And your self-defense attorney should be aware of this.

To prove a bodily harm assault crime, for example, the government must prove that a defendant intentionally applied force to another person without consent. See, State v. Dorn, 887 NW2d 826, 831 (Minn. Supreme Court 2016).

Charges: Defense of Self, Another, Property

Self-defense type defenses may apply to these,among other, types of criminal charges:

Crimes Against Persons

Domestic Assault

Disorderly conduct

Obstruction & Resisting Arrest in Minnesota

Gun Charges

When Available: The defense of self-defense, can apply in any case where the facts show that the defendant acted in self-defense. This includes Crimes Against Persons cases, like murder and assault. And self-defense can also be a defense in a disorderly conduct case; as well as a riot charge. Discuss with self-defense attorney Thomas Gallagher.

“I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live forever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.”

Mohandas Gandhi, Between Cowardice & Violence, The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, 1945

Question? Call Self-Defense Attorney Thomas Gallagher, 612 333-1500

Self-Defense Attorney Thomas Gallagher is the author of this page. Knowing the law can empower you. Check out the many other, linked pages about self-defense law on this site.

“The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi, who sanctioned it for those unable to master pure nonviolence.”

Martin Luther King, Pilgrimage to Nonviolence, 1958

More on self-defense law

Point-of-View and Self-Defense: The Other

The “Reasonable Person” Standard

Escalation, Dominance, Deception in Self-defense

Blog series on Self-Defense

Criminal Defenses in Minnesota

Court Process Guide | Criminal Procedure