Minnesota's controversial deadly force bill advances

[Gore1FL]

18. No. it doesn't mean that at all.

Here is the text of the bill:

4.26 Subd. 2. Circumstances when authorized. (a) The use of deadly force by an
4.27individual is justified under this section when the act is undertaken:
4.28(1) to resist or prevent the commission of a felony in the individual's dwelling;
4.29(2) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is an offense or
4.30attempted offense that imminently exposes the individual or another person to substantial
4.31bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death; or
4.32(3) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is the commission or
4.33imminent commission of a forcible felony.
4.34(b) The use of deadly force is not authorized under this section if the individual
4.35knows that the person against whom force is being used is a licensed peace officer from
5.1this state, another state, the United States, or any subordinate jurisdiction of the United
5.2States, who is acting lawfully.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing the bill. There are things in the bill already available to criticize. We don't need to invent false things to criticize. There is something wrong with that.