Minnesota’s Duty to Retreat

The other day I put up a short post on Facebook: Minnesota is not a stand-your-ground state. Outside your home, you have a duty to retreat if you reasonably can before using force, even just pointing a gun. Inside your home, that duty doesn't apply.

That one got people fired up. 122 comments. Some of you agreed with me, some of you were mad at me, and a lot of you were mad at the law. And plenty of you asked really good questions.

Most people won't read past the first sentence of a post, and this topic has more layers than any post can hold. I could talk about it for ten hours and still not cover everything. So here's the longer version.

One thing up front. I didn't write these laws, and I don't agree with all of them. But you need to know where the line is before you get anywhere near it.

What "duty to retreat" means in Minnesota

Outside your home, if you can reasonably retreat or avoid the danger, you have to do that before you use force.

Here's what surprises a lot of people. You won't find the words "duty to retreat" anywhere in Minnesota's statutes. It comes from court decisions. The Minnesota Supreme Court said so plainly in State v. Blevins (2024), calling it "a judicially created element of self-defense." Back in 1999, in State v. Carothers, the court wrote that "Minnesota statutes have never addressed whether a duty to retreat attaches" to these defenses.

The statutes themselves are short. Minn. Stat. § 609.06 says reasonable force may be used "when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist," including:

(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(3)-(4)

And for deadly force, Minn. Stat. § 609.065:

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

Read those again. Not one word about retreat. That part came from the courts, and the courts got a lot of it from England.

Where it came from: walls, ditches and castles

You'll hear the old rule called "retreat to the wall." That's the nickname. Here's what Sir William Blackstone actually wrote in his Commentaries in 1769 (spelling modernized):

The party assaulted must therefore flee as far as he conveniently can, either by reason of some wall, ditch, or other impediment; or as far as the fierceness of the assault will permit him: for it may be so fierce as not to allow him to yield a step, without manifest danger of his life, or enormous bodily harm; and then in his defence he may kill his assailant instantly.

Blackstone, Commentaries, Book IV, ch. 14

Even back then it was retreat "as far as he conveniently can." "If you can" is not a new idea.

The home has always been different. In Semayne's Case (1604), the English court said "the house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence, as for his repose." You could gather your neighbors to defend your house, but not "to go with him to the market." Blackstone said the law calls a man's house "his castle." That's where the castle doctrine comes from.

Minnesota's Supreme Court has quoted this 1914 line from New York's Judge Benjamin Cardozo:

It is not now and never has been the law that a man assailed in his own dwelling is bound to retreat. If assailed there, he may stand his ground and resist the attack. He is under no duty to take to the fields and the highways, a fugitive from his own home.

People v. Tomlins (N.Y. 1914), quoted in State v. Glowacki (Minn. 2001)

What the jury will actually hear

If you ever claim self-defense in a Minnesota courtroom, the judge reads the jury an instruction. Minnesota's standard instructions are called CRIMJIG. This is CRIMJIG 7.05, from the 6th edition (October 2017 update) as reproduced by Law of Self Defense. Outside the home, four conditions:

In order for the taking of a life to be justified for this reason, four conditions must be met. First, the defendant's act must have been done in the belief that it was necessary to avert death or great bodily harm. Second, the judgment of the defendant as to the gravity of the peril to which (he) (she) (or another) was exposed must have been reasonable under the circumstances. Third, the defendant's election to defend must have been such as a reasonable person would have made in light of the danger perceived and the existence of any alternative way of avoiding the peril. Fourth, there was no reasonable possibility of retreat to avoid the danger. All four conditions must be met.

CRIMJIG 7.05, In Defense of Self (6th ed.)

Check out the last one. No interpretation needed.

Now the defense-of-dwelling part of the same instruction. Three conditions:

In order for a killing to be justified for this reason, three conditions must be met. First, the defendant's action was done to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling. Second, the defendant's judgment as to the gravity of the situation was reasonable under the circumstances. Third, the defendant's election to defend (his) (her) dwelling was such as a reasonable person would have made in light of the danger perceived. All three conditions must be met. The defendant has no duty to retreat.

CRIMJIG 7.05, In Defense of Dwelling (6th ed.)

7.05 is for cases where someone died. When nobody died, CRIMJIG 7.06 carries the same line: "This includes the duty to retreat or avoid the danger if reasonably possible." Either way, the State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in self-defense.

"If you can" is the whole point

I never said you always have to retreat. I said if you can. So let's ask some honest questions.

Can you outrun a bullet? No. Can most people outrun a guy 30 feet away charging at them with a knife? No. Do you have to jump out of your own house to get away from an attacker? No. Do you have to run off and leave a helpless victim to the attacker? No.

If you can't retreat in complete safety for yourself and other innocent people, then you don't. That's the key part.

The courts look at it the same way. In State v. Baker (2024), the Supreme Court said a jury could reasonably find that Baker, "with guns pointed at him, did not have a reasonable opportunity to retreat." Turning your back on a threat in an open parking lot is not the same as having a safe way out.

Defending someone else? In State v. Valdez (2024), the court said the question is whether you believed "the person in peril has no reasonable possibility of safe retreat," and that belief has to be objectively reasonable. The law doesn't make you abandon the person you're protecting. One honest footnote: that got Valdez a new trial, and the jury convicted him again in 2025.

Blevins: showing a weapon counts too

This is the case behind the "even just pointing a gun" part of my post. In July 2024, in a 4-2 decision, the Supreme Court decided State v. Blevins. Blevins was on a Minneapolis light-rail platform when a man with a knife threatened to slice his throat. Blevins pulled a machete and swung it at people for about a minute. He never actually hurt anyone.

The court held that the duty to retreat applies before you commit second-degree assault-fear with a dangerous weapon. In plain English: before you threaten someone with a weapon. The video showed he could have left, so his conviction stood. The majority put it bluntly: "In Minnesota, a person does not have an inherent right to stand their ground."

To be accurate: that case was a machete, not a gun. The court called its ruling "narrow" and limited it to "a device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm." A handgun is about as "designed as a weapon" as it gets, so I'd treat pointing a gun the same way. But I'm not aware of a Minnesota appellate case on those exact facts yet. Two justices dissented.

Inside your home

In your own home, there's no duty to retreat. Even from someone who lives there with you. Here's the rule from State v. Glowacki (2001):

There is no duty to retreat from one's own home when acting in self-defense in the home, regardless of whether the aggressor is a co-resident. But the lack of a duty to retreat does not abrogate the obligation to act reasonably when using force in self-defense.

State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. 2001)

Pay attention to that second sentence. Glowacki won the legal point and still lost his case. The court decided the force he used was unreasonable no matter which version of the story you believed, so his convictions were reinstated. No duty to retreat is not a free pass.

In Carothers (1999), the court held that the duty to retreat doesn't apply to defense of dwelling. A duty to retreat, the court said, "will force people to leave their homes by the back door while their family members are exposed to danger and their houses are burgled." But the court also said these defenses "do not confer a license to kill or to inflict great bodily harm merely because the offense occurs within the home."

Then there's State v. Pendleton (1997). Inside your home, defense of dwelling doesn't require you to have feared being killed or seriously hurt. Reasonably believing a felony was being committed, like an assault, can be enough. The court boiled it down to three questions. Were you preventing a felony in your home? Was that belief reasonable under the circumstances? And was the deadly force reasonable under the circumstances, in light of the danger?

Your force still has to be reasonable. If someone inside your home is committing a financial felony, it would not be reasonable to shoot them. And defense of dwelling is about intruders, not people who live there with you. Against a co-resident it's self-defense in the home, still with no duty to retreat under Glowacki.

One more: State v. Devens (2014), a Waseca case. Devens left his apartment to confront a non-resident in the building's hallway, and they fought. The court said a shared hallway isn't your home, because you don't have "exclusive possession and control" over it. He had a duty to retreat there.

The stand-your-ground bill that failed

A lot of you said Minnesota needs better laws on this. I agree with you on a lot of it. In 2025, Rep. Matt Bliss brought HF 13, which would have let you use reasonable force "regardless of whether a reasonable possibility of retreat to avoid the danger exists." He said it was a response to Blevins.

It passed the House public safety committee 10-8 in February. On March 6, 2025, it went to the House floor and failed. The official House journal shows it at 66-66, short of the 68 votes it needed. It was reconsidered and tabled, and it's been sitting there ever since. The Senate version, SF 624, never made it out of committee. (KARE 11 and FOX 9 covered the vote.)

If you don't agree with the law, speak up and contact your legislators. Until it changes, this is the law you'll be judged by.

Your questions from the Facebook post

Isn't breaking into my house a felony already?

It can be, and § 609.065 just says "a felony." There's no list. But a break-in alone doesn't mean you can shoot. Under Pendleton you need a reasonable belief that a felony is happening and a reasonable level of force for the danger you're facing. What about at night with more than one intruder, where you can't know what they intend? That one deserves its own post, and I'm working on it.

Who decides what's "reasonable" or what I was "able" to do?

Usually a jury. The Supreme Court said in Glowacki that "a reasonableness determination is properly made by the finder of fact — in this case, the jury." If you bring enough evidence to raise self-defense, the State has to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Twelve people get to look back at a decision you made in seconds.

I'm 70 and I walk with a cane. How am I supposed to retreat?

"If you can" is the key. Retreat only counts if it's reasonably possible, and the instructions keep coming back to what's reasonable "under the circumstances." Your age, your health and your mobility are part of those circumstances. If you can't get away in complete safety, you don't have to try.

Is my garage part of my home?

Honestly, that's a gray area, and I couldn't find a Minnesota appellate case that answers it for an attached or detached garage. Devens said what counts as "home" depends on exclusive possession and control, and the court said it wasn't going to "resolve for all time the contours of what is home." Even Blackstone said a "distant barn" wasn't your castle. If this matters to your situation, talk to an attorney. Better yet, don't go out to the garage to investigate. That's how Devens got himself in trouble.

"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

I get it. I'd rather live than die. But I also don't want to spend the rest of my life in prison, and that's not a win either. So I adapted it a little: I'd rather not be judged by 12 nor carried by 6, so I will do everything in my power to avoid both.

Avoidance isn't weakness. If you go home alive and don't spend years in prison, you won.

What I'd actually do

Avoid trouble. Don't go looking for it, and don't step outside your safe space to confront someone. If you can leave safely, leave, and get 911 on the line once you're safe.

Train, so the decisions you make under stress are good ones. And know the law before you carry, not after.

I cover this in detail in my Permit to Carry class, along with a lot that won't fit in a blog post. If you want to really understand where the line is, sign up for a Permit to Carry class at mnselfdefense.com. Questions? Text me at 507-884-5774 or email chris@mnselfdefense.com.

Chris Marquette, Precision Plus Firearms Training

Disclaimer

This post is general education, not legal advice. I'm a firearms instructor, not your attorney. Laws and court decisions change, and every situation is different. If you have questions about a specific situation, talk to a Minnesota attorney.

Sources

Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 609.06, Authorized Use of Force (2025 Minnesota Statutes)
Minn. Stat. § 609.065, Justifiable Taking of Life (2025 Minnesota Statutes)

Jury instructions
CRIMJIG 7.05, Self-Defense: Justifiable Taking of Life (10 Minn. Prac., Jury Instr. Guides–Criminal, 6th ed., Oct. 2017 update), via Law of Self Defense
CRIMJIG 7.06, Self-Defense: Death Not the Result (6th ed., Oct. 2017 update), via Law of Self Defense

Cases
State v. Pendleton, 567 N.W.2d 265 (Minn. 1997)
State v. Basting, 572 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. 1997)
State v. Carothers, 594 N.W.2d 897 (Minn. 1999)
State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. 2001)
State v. Devens, 852 N.W.2d 255 (Minn. 2014)
State v. Blevins, No. A22-0432 (Minn. July 31, 2024)
State v. Valdez, No. A22-1424 (Minn. Oct. 9, 2024)
State v. Baker, No. A22-1283 (Minn. Nov. 13, 2024)

Common law history
Semayne's Case, 5 Co. Rep. 91a (K.B. 1604)
Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book IV, ch. 14, "Of Homicide" (Avalon Project, Yale Law School)
Blackstone, Commentaries, Book IV, ch. 16, "Of Offenses Against the Habitations of Individuals" (Avalon Project)

Legislation
HF 13 (2025-2026), Minnesota Revisor of Statutes bill status
SF 624 (2025-2026), Minnesota Revisor of Statutes bill status

News
"Bill to expand right to self-defense in Minnesota fails House vote," MN House Session Daily, Mar. 6, 2025
"Divided public safety committee approves bill broadening self-defense rights," MN House Session Daily, Feb. 26, 2025
"MN bill to eliminate 'duty to retreat' in self-defense fails to pass," KARE 11, Mar. 6, 2025
"MN bill that would remove 'duty to retreat' requirement from law fails House vote," FOX 9, Mar. 6, 2025
"Minnesota Supreme Court weighs in on when a threatened person must retreat," MPR News, Aug. 1, 2024
"State Supreme Court establishes duty to retreat before wielding weapon for self-defense," KSTP, July 31, 2024
"Minnesota Supreme Court orders new trial for man convicted of murder for shooting stepbrother's attacker," Minnesota Star Tribune, Oct. 11, 2024
"Jury finds Renville, Minnesota, man guilty of murder in retrial," West Central Tribune, May 13, 2025