Permit holder involved shooting-MN [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Permit holder involved shooting-MN


EAJuggalo
10-22-2011, 08:22
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/132311553.html

Moderator Note: Quoting copyrighted material is not permitted on Glock Talk.

EAJuggalo
10-22-2011, 08:25
I just don't know how this is going to turn out for the guy since he followed the dead guy behind the restaurant. I know the area very well, let's just say I wouldn't be going behind that strip mall that late at night by myself, armed or not.

r3dot
10-22-2011, 08:26
chased down the suspect and fatally shot him Thursday night.

Stupid decision.

debbert
10-22-2011, 08:32
While I commend him for removing a thug from society, I believe that chasing the suspect down, prior to shooting him, is going to come back to bite him in the butt.

Bogey
10-22-2011, 08:38
While I commend him for removing a thug from society, I believe that chasing the suspect down, prior to shooting him, is going to come back to bite him in the butt.

The story said it was completely legal for him to do this.

RussP
10-22-2011, 08:38
What is the law there on a third party (someone other than the victim) pursuing and using lethal force?

EAJuggalo
10-22-2011, 08:46
Russ, that is the question that the Grand Jury and probably a trial jury are going to have to decide. The permit holder was within his rights to attempt a citizens' arrest but once the dead guy broke off the attack and left the scene he re-established his right to self defense. If the prosecution can get 12 people to agree that the dead guy was in "reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm" than the permit holder is going to go down. I think if we find out the permit holder had drawn before turning the corner of the building he's screwed. In order for him to come away clean the investigation is going to have to find that he drew after the dead guy raised his weapon. One other thing to throw in, this happened in Hennepin County which runs about 75-80 percent anti-gun in the first place.

GoBigOrange
10-22-2011, 08:47
I'm not going to chase an armed suspect over a purse snatching but I won't fault the citizen for doing so. I just hope he isn't charged. Hopefully he didn't shoot him in the back.

billyblooshoes
10-22-2011, 08:48
sounds sketchy. i would have been more concerned about rendering aid to the victimized woman than chasing down some thug to recover her pursue, then take his life. i hope he doesnt get in trouble, but a court may argue that he escalated the situation by giving chase...

RussP
10-22-2011, 09:08
Russ, that is the question that the Grand Jury and probably a trial jury are going to have to decide. The permit holder was within his rights to attempt a citizens' arrest but once the dead guy broke off the attack and left the scene he re-established his right to self defense. If the prosecution can get 12 people to agree that the dead guy was in "reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm" than the permit holder is going to go down. I think if we find out the permit holder had drawn before turning the corner of the building he's screwed. In order for him to come away clean the investigation is going to have to find that he drew after the dead guy raised his weapon. One other thing to throw in, this happened in Hennepin County which runs about 75-80 percent anti-gun in the first place.609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
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:(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; or(2) when used by a person not a public officer in arresting another in the cases and in the manner provided by law and delivering the other to an officer competent to receive the other into custody; or(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; or(5) when used by any person to prevent the escape, or to retake following the escape, of a person lawfully held on a charge or conviction of a crime; or(6) when used by a parent, guardian, teacher, or other lawful custodian of a child or pupil, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain or correct such child or pupil; or(7) when used by a school employee or school bus driver, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain a child or pupil, or to prevent bodily harm or death to another; or(8) when used by a common carrier in expelling a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful requirement for the conduct of passengers and reasonable care is exercised with regard to the passenger's personal safety; or(9) when used to restrain a person who is mentally ill or mentally defective from self-injury or injury to another or when used by one with authority to do so to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the person's control, conduct, or treatment; or(10) when used by a public or private institution providing custody or treatment against one lawfully committed to it to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the control, conduct, or treatment of the committed person.
Subd. 2. 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.http://mplscrimewatch.blogspot.com/2006/11/minnesota-use-of-force-laws.html

Burleigh
10-22-2011, 09:10
The MN Carry Forum has been discussing this shooting and is worth reading. Some of the folks commenting are some of the most knowledgeable people in the state on the carry law and self defense. Prosecutorial discression looms large here. Here is a link to the discussion :

http://www.carryforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17884

IndyGunFreak
10-22-2011, 09:12
sounds sketchy. i would have been more concerned about rendering aid to the victimized woman than chasing down some thug to recover her pursue, then take his life. i hope he doesnt get in trouble, but a court may argue that he escalated the situation by giving chase...

"I ran after him to try and get a description of him for the police, and next thing I knew, he turned on me with the gun"

There could be a million scenarios as to why the person fired. Guy was on probation for another violent felony, had just committed another (and who knows how many he committed and just didn't get caught)

No sympathy from me, even if he shot the guy in the back. Only way I'd have a problem with this, if the bad guy surrendered and he more or less executed him.

IGF

tonyparson
10-22-2011, 10:01
I dont think I would of chased the guy down, but when your adrenaline kicks in it makes you do things you might not think you would do.. If I did do this, the only words out of my mouth would of been, here's my info and I need to talk to my lawyer before I give a statement...

LongGoneDays
10-22-2011, 10:39
Going from what the article said it looks like a good shoot to me. Not something I would have done though.

barstoolguru
10-22-2011, 11:22
He has a right to make a citizen’s arrest when he witnessed a felony and used self-defense when the BG pulled a gun.... case closed

AA#5
10-22-2011, 11:28
Interesting that the article says "They (permit holders) need to evaluate the situation like police would."

Well, police would also chase down a suspect & if necessary, shoot him.

BailRecoveryAgent
10-22-2011, 11:37
"I ran after him to try and get a description of him for the police, and next thing I knew, he turned on me with the gun"

There could be a million scenarios as to why the person fired. Guy was on probation for another violent felony, had just committed another (and who knows how many he committed and just didn't get caught)

No sympathy from me, even if he shot the guy in the back. Only way I'd have a problem with this, if the bad guy surrendered and he more or less executed him.

IGF

But he was just getting ready to turn his life around probably, now he'll never get the opportunity to be an upstanding model citizen.:crying:

I agree, short of him giving up then being executed, I vote good shoot.

Motor City Glocker
10-22-2011, 11:40
Interesting that the article says "They (permit holders) need to evaluate the situation like police would."

Well, police would also chase down a suspect & if necessary, shoot him.


Very good point.

IT0
10-22-2011, 12:21
What a idiot, and this is going to cost him some money too.

TDC20
10-22-2011, 13:26
Russ, that is the question that the Grand Jury and probably a trial jury are going to have to decide. The permit holder was within his rights to attempt a citizens' arrest but once the dead guy broke off the attack and left the scene he re-established his right to self defense. If the prosecution can get 12 people to agree that the dead guy was in "reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm" than the permit holder is going to go down. I think if we find out the permit holder had drawn before turning the corner of the building he's screwed. In order for him to come away clean the investigation is going to have to find that he drew after the dead guy raised his weapon. One other thing to throw in, this happened in Hennepin County which runs about 75-80 percent anti-gun in the first place.

EAJuggalo, this isn't a personal attack on you, so please don't take it that way. What you said is 100% true, and it's most likely how the law will be applied, pending prosecutorial discretion.

My problem is this. I seriously doubt if there had been a police presence when this crime occurred that the perp would have attempted the robbery in the first place. So he robs a 53yo woman, at gunpoint, and pistol whips her. That's a heinous crime. If the police had witnessed this crime, and had given pursuit and ended the confrontation with a fatal shooting, the same issues you posit here would also be considered, but by an internal police investigation (police investigating police). Unless there was evidence that the perp was summarily executed, no charges would be filed. That is the politics of police shootings and investigations. There have been many cases of perps being shot in the back, and no charges are filed because of the circumstances.

So why are so many people calling this a bad or questionable shoot? The police weren't there, and someone stepped up to fill the void. He probably did something that most of us wouldn't do, but in the end, the result was a positive outcome. Now there seems to be a fairly large proportion of people who want to see him prosecuted for misconduct and possibly even murder. If there's evidence that he executed the guy, then OK, that needs to be prosecuted. But aside from that, I'd want to elect the guy as sheriff!

The real problem is the people. If jurors would refuse to convict people who came to the aid of their fellow citizens, we wouldn't have these kinds of cases or these kinds of attitudes every time a CCW holder shot a perp during the commission of a crime (no, the crime was not over as the felon was fleeing the scene here, so don't try arguing that). If jurors would refuse to convict, then prosecutors would stop trying to crucify CCW holders by bringing criminal prosecution.

The way I see this, if it would have been a good shoot for the police, then it was a good shoot for the CCW holder. This needs to be determined by a proper investigation of the available evidence in either case, but anything less is a (misguided) double standard.

boomhower
10-22-2011, 13:45
I think he's going to be spending done big bucks on an attorney.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

barstoolguru
10-22-2011, 14:15
What a idiot, and this is going to cost him some money too.


Why?... if it goes to a grand jury and they find him not guilty he is clear and I am sure they will... you don't need a lawyer for a grand jury (you never go and testify) and they let him go after Questioning so no bail.

Bruce M
10-22-2011, 17:49
The way I see this, if it would have been a good shoot for the police, then it was a good shoot for the CCW holder. This needs to be determined by a proper investigation of the available evidence in either case, but anything less is a (misguided) double standard.

However sometimes the way people who often have to decide these things do not see it that way. The standards can be different because while the permit holder might want to chase the bad guy he may also well have a strong option to NOT chase the bad guy. The police, however, have some obligations to attempt to apprehend criminals; that is why the standards are sometimes different. It's not a double standard, it is a different standard based on a mandated task versus an option to disengage.

steveksux
10-22-2011, 17:55
What is the law there on a third party (someone other than the victim) pursuing and using lethal force?From the article, sounds like the cops are of a mind that he chased him down to retrieve the purse, and THEN when the suspect escalated and shot at the Good Samaritan, he was justified in using deadly force as he was being attacked.

So sounds like the cops are leaning towards taking the side of the CCWer as long as there's no contrary evidence. Which is a good thing.

If the Good Samaritan chased the perp down and shot him down, using deadly force after pursuit, without an overt deadly threat prompting that, there might be an issue. And could be serious trouble if the cops took the position that this was their working theory unless there were contrary evidence...

So from that standpoint, putting yourself at the mercy of prosecutorial discretion when you can let the guy go is a risky move. Some would call it stupid, I would say it was a decision not in his best interest. Does that make him brave, or stupid? I can't bring my self to say he was stupid, and wish him the best, hope it doesn't come back to bite him.

But your point is well taken, in MI you can "step into the shoes" of another being attacked, and respond as if you were being attacked. Would be problematic if MN has no such provision...

This would be a good application for an ankle holster, as you were putting on the victims shoes as a diversion, pull the pistol from the ankle holster and surprise the robber. Maybe I should start a thread in Tactics and Training on this? :whistling:

Randy

steveksux
10-22-2011, 17:59
But he was just getting ready to turn his life around probably, now he'll never get the opportunity to be an upstanding model citizen.:crying:
The thug should have turned his life around more slowly, with his hands empty and clearly visible... :tongueout::rofl:

Randy

Warp
10-22-2011, 18:09
Hopefully he was legally justified.

Either way that is something I would certainly not do. The risk/reward scale just doesn't pan out, IMO.

steveksux
10-22-2011, 18:14
Hopefully he was legally justified.

Either way that is something I would certainly not do. The risk/reward scale just doesn't pan out, IMO.Especially in MN, didn't they just get CCW lately? Doesn't make it likely the authorities are particularly pro-gun, pro self defense minded. Might be just as likely to try to make an example of this guy to discourage vigilantism as give him the benefit of the doubt.

In Texas, he might be in much better shape. You really need to take into account local attitudes, especially police and prosecutors. Also the general population, as they'll be on your jury if the police/prosecutors decide to hang you out to dry.

Randy

Burleigh
10-22-2011, 19:06
There are 87 counties in Mn. Years ago a county attorney was discussing a new law and said there wasn't one law for the state there were 87 laws because each county attorney would decide how ( and if ) the new law would be enforced. Hennepin County and Mpls. where the shooting took place is extremely liberal and has had a reputation for anti self defense attitudes. People in the know think this case will be different. I hope they are right. The real problem for the good guy will likely be the civil litigation which is sure to follow.

MN could have passed a stand your ground law in the last session but were betrayed by both parties. The Republican leadership still refuses to even tell members in the legislature from their own party why they dumped the legislation at the last moment. The good guy would probably have been in a stronger position had the law passed.

kensteele
10-22-2011, 20:25
"I ran after him to try and get a description of him for the police, and next thing I knew, he turned on me with the gun"

There could be a million scenarios as to why the person fired. Guy was on probation for another violent felony, had just committed another (and who knows how many he committed and just didn't get caught)

No sympathy from me, even if he shot the guy in the back. Only way I'd have a problem with this, if the bad guy surrendered and he more or less executed him.

IGF

+1 my thoughts exactly. no way i side with teh criminal.

Misty02
10-22-2011, 20:38
Two different things mentioned in this article that lead me to two different thoughts.


…. Chased down the suspect and fatally shot him…


That would get him in deep doo doo in a state like FL.


(further down in the story)….chased Evanovich behind the restaurant and shot him during a confrontation…..


If he chased him for the purpose of retrieving the lady’s purse and a confrontation ensued where he had to fired in self-defense, then a different story.

I hope things go well for him.

purrrfect 10
10-22-2011, 20:57
Interesting that the article says "They (permit holders) need to evaluate the situation like police would."

Well, police would also chase down a suspect & if necessary, shoot him.


Chalk one up for CCW. kinda border line however police let him go for now is a plus. Would I have gone after the guy, don't know most likely not.

Guys and gals... It could be you being robbed next time is the lesson here Best be prepared things aren't getting any better soon

IT0
10-22-2011, 22:11
Why?... if it goes to a grand jury and they find him not guilty he is clear and I am sure they will... you don't need a lawyer for a grand jury (you never go and testify) and they let him go after Questioning so no bail.

1) He will need a lawyer, for the grand jury. Unless he wants to represent himself.
2) The Grand Jury is made up of "peers" who may not for whatever reason believe he was justified and chasing down a criminal and shooting him.
3) Once they see this guy's CCW Badge, it will be over.

IndyGunFreak
10-22-2011, 22:37
1) He will need a lawyer, for the grand jury. Unless he wants to represent himself.
2) The Grand Jury is made up of "peers" who may not for whatever reason believe he was justified and chasing down a criminal and shooting him.
3) Once they see this guy's CCW Badge, it will be over.

1. Do you know what a Grand Jury hearing is? He doesn't have to testify at a Grand Jury hearing, therefore, no, he doesn't need a lawyer. There is no "cross examination". It is strictly a Prosecutors tool. They present the facts, Grand Jury decides if there should be charges.

2. I'm thinking once the *facts* are heard(scumbag was on parole for another violent felony, had just pistol whipped a woman in a robbery..) they're gonna be grateful it wasn't their mother that ran into this guy.

3. What on earth does that have to do w/ anything? I've saw nothing said about a CCW badge.

IGF

larry_minn
10-22-2011, 22:37
Why?... if it goes to a grand jury and they find him not guilty he is clear and I am sure they will... you don't need a lawyer for a grand jury (you never go and testify) and they let him go after Questioning so no bail.

While this may be true. Its not a good idea. You really should have a lawyer BEFORE you give your statement to Police. Its not as big a deal WHAT YOU DID as HOW you explain it.
If you miss-speak it can come back to haunt you. If your lawyer makes a statment on your behalf. Its much safer for you.
Lets say you make a statement at scene. Most folks will be "hyper" and may say things incorrectly. My understanding is POLICE Officers involved in shooting do NOT give a statement that night. (full/written/signed) but just basics and do full report (with advocate) next day.

Not only may you make mistake the Officer taking report may be distracted/remember things different then what you intended to convey...
Sad to say even if you have a "good" shoot thats on vidio, many folks saw/heard it.... You still (likely) would be money/time/freedom ahead to get a lawyer first.

jellis11
10-22-2011, 22:46
He was a good kid you guys, just trying to get money to feed his three babies in St. P and then hit up the casino... That's all. :whistling:

Louisville Glocker
10-22-2011, 22:54
I predict no charges...

mrsurfboard
10-22-2011, 23:02
CC permits are for protection of life, when CCWers start acting like cops and chasing down and killing criminals, there are going to be some public opinion/political issues.

mrsurfboard
10-22-2011, 23:04
1. Do you know what a Grand Jury hearing is? He doesn't have to testify at a Grand Jury hearing, therefore, no, he doesn't need a lawyer. There is no "cross examination". It is strictly a Prosecutors tool. They present the facts, Grand Jury decides if there should be charges.

2. I'm thinking once the *facts* are heard(scumbag was on parole for another violent felony, had just pistol whipped a woman in a robbery..) they're gonna be grateful it wasn't their mother that ran into this guy.

3. What on earth does that have to do w/ anything? I've saw nothing said about a CCW badge.

IGF

Whooooosssssshhhh, I think he was making a joke.

RussP
10-23-2011, 05:01
Hey, guys, lets not be beating each other up over this.

Some of us would do the same thing, some of us would not for a whole lot of different reasons.

I found something interesting reading about this. The attitude of MPD is positive, perhaps actually supportive of the Good Samaritan's actions.

If you haven't read the posts on Minnesota Carry Forum linked to by Burleigh (http://www.carryforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17884), you need to.

Burleigh
10-23-2011, 05:10
RussP ....The rank and file MPD officers I know well have an extremely positive take on citizen self defense. The politicians don't. My understanding is the grunts will prevail on this one. Hope that's right.

misunderestimated
10-23-2011, 05:38
CC permits are for protection of life, when CCWers start acting like cops and chasing down and killing criminals, there are going to be some public opinion/political issues.


And the world will be a safer place.

RussP
10-23-2011, 06:18
CC permits are for protection of life, when CCWers start acting like cops and chasing down and killing criminals, there are going to be some public opinion/political issues.What was the permit holder thinking when he took off after the thief? Seriously, do you know his mindset at that moment?

Did he draw his weapon and run after the thief shouting, "STOP! STOP! CITIZEN'S ARREST!!!!!!!!!"

Did he just want to recover the victim's purse? What if the bad guy had just dropped the purse? Property is recovered and there is no story?

No one on this board or any other board knows why he did what he did. Is what he did "acting like cops" in the derogatory way I believe you intended it?

If you read the law on the use of force, 609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE, Subdivision 1. (1) addresses use of force by a public officer. Next following is 609.06 Subdivision 1. (2) which deals specifically with "a person not a public officer." The law distinguishes the difference between acts by a public officer and the acts of a person not a public officer.

The law continues with (3), (4) and (5) which address acts by "any person".

No where does the law address "a person acting like a public officer", let alone a "a person with a carry permit acting like a public officer."

So, while we do not know why the permit holder chased the thief, we do know that the law supports his, a person not a public officer", actions.

So far public opinion appears to be in favor of the permit holder. As to the political issues, they will always float to the surface.

happyguy
10-23-2011, 06:44
Hopefully he was legally justified.

Either way that is something I would certainly not do. The risk/reward scale just doesn't pan out, IMO.

Yep, a lot of cops have been ambushed chasing perps.

Perp goes around corner.

Cop goes around corner.

Perp is waiting for cop.

Stay safe and take your corners slow and wide.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

barstoolguru
10-23-2011, 07:41
Yep, a lot of cops have been ambushed chasing perps.

Perp goes around corner.

Cop goes around corner.

Perp is waiting for cop.

Stay safe and take your corners slow and wide.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

It’s called slicing the pie

barstoolguru
10-23-2011, 08:14
While this may be true. Its not a good idea. You really should have a lawyer BEFORE you give your statement to Police. Its not as big a deal WHAT YOU DID as HOW you explain it.
If you miss-speak it can come back to haunt you. If your lawyer makes a statment on your behalf. Its much safer for you.
Lets say you make a statement at scene. Most folks will be "hyper" and may say things incorrectly. My understanding is POLICE Officers involved in shooting do NOT give a statement that night. (full/written/signed) but just basics and do full report (with advocate) next day.

Not only may you make mistake the Officer taking report may be distracted/remember things different then what you intended to convey...
Sad to say even if you have a "good" shoot thats on vidio, many folks saw/heard it.... You still (likely) would be money/time/freedom ahead to get a lawyer first.

You don’t want to talk to the grand jury because whatever is said can be used against you. You don’t even have to go it is voluntary

kensteele
10-23-2011, 10:59
The shooter already has a lawyer since no way does he go to the police station to talk to the police without one. If he didn't already have a lawyer, he would currently be in the hennepin county jail awaiting charges. lol

steveksux
10-23-2011, 11:57
1. Do you know what a Grand Jury hearing is? He doesn't have to testify at a Grand Jury hearing, therefore, no, he doesn't need a lawyer. There is no "cross examination". It is strictly a Prosecutors tool. They present the facts, Grand Jury decides if there should be charges.

2. I'm thinking once the *facts* are heard(scumbag was on parole for another violent felony, had just pistol whipped a woman in a robbery..) they're gonna be grateful it wasn't their mother that ran into this guy.

3. What on earth does that have to do w/ anything? I've saw nothing said about a CCW badge.

IGFProblem is that the prosecutor is the one providing the facts. If prosecutor wants him charged, or not, makes a huge difference what facts get presented.

Prior criminal history is not admissible in regular trials, as it taints the jury, they look at the circumstances regarding this particular incident. And really isn't relevant anyway, since CCWer wouldn't be aware of it at the time.

Randy

IndyGunFreak
10-23-2011, 12:01
Problem is that the prosecutor is the one providing the facts. If prosecutor wants him charged, or not, makes a huge difference what facts get presented.

Prior criminal history is not admissible in regular trials, as it taints the jury, they look at the circumstances regarding this particular incident. And really isn't relevant anyway, since CCWer wouldn't be aware of it at the time.

Randy

Yeah, I understand that... it's all about how the Prosecutor presents the facts to the GJ... he still doesn't have to testify, and even if he does, he doesn't really need a lawyer to do it (because if he gets a lawyer, any lawyer is going to tell him NOT to testify at the GJ hearing).

happyguy
10-23-2011, 12:45
It’s called slicing the pie
Sort of, but if you slow down too much you won't ever catch anyone. It's not quite the same as when you are entering a room.

You slow down (a little) and take the corner wide so if he's waiting for you, you are out of arms reach and moving to the side in front of him. It's always a little scary when you lose sight of your quarry, especially if he's a known violent person.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

mrsurfboard
10-23-2011, 13:09
RussP ....The rank and file MPD officers I know well have an extremely positive take on citizen self defense. The politicians don't. My understanding is the grunts will prevail on this one. Hope that's right.

This was not self defense, the guy tried to be a cop and chased after the guy, it was then that the gun fight occurred.

mrsurfboard
10-23-2011, 13:13
You don’t want to talk to the grand jury because whatever is said can be used against you. You don’t even have to go it is voluntary

The subject of a Grand Jury does not testify, nor is he even present. A Grand Jury is where the Prosecutor presents the facts to a group of Grand Jurors. He can call witnesses to suport his case, but that's it. Based on that, the Grand Jury decides to "bill" or "no bill" the indictment.

RussP
10-23-2011, 13:16
This was not self defense, the guy tried to be a cop and chased after the guy, it was then that the gun fight occurred.Obviously you have information the rest of us have not found. How about sharing with us the link to the interview where he said that.

Thanks

barstoolguru
10-23-2011, 13:31
Obviously you have information the rest of us have not found. How about sharing with us the link to the interview where he said that.

Thanks

The 7th paragraph down says" he seen the robbery and chased the man behind the restaurant and shot him during the confrontation

RussP
10-23-2011, 13:35
This was not self defense, the guy tried to be a cop and chased after the guy, it was then that the gun fight occurred.Obviously you have information the rest of us have not found. How about sharing with us the link to the interview where he said that.

ThanksThe 7th paragraph down says" he seen the robbery and chased the man behind the restaurant and shot him during the confrontation True, but the part in bold above, the part about him trying to be a cop, where is that stated?

barstoolguru
10-23-2011, 13:52
Sort of, but if you slow down too much you won't ever catch anyone. It's not quite the same as when you are entering a room.

You slow down (a little) and take the corner wide so if he's waiting for you, you are out of arms reach and moving to the side in front of him. It's always a little scary when you lose sight of your quarry, especially if he's a known violent person.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

be a hero and charge in and you just might be a dead one

this is the best video I could find

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6XDucCdSmA&feature=related

barstoolguru
10-23-2011, 14:09
True, but the part in bold above, the part about him trying to be a cop, where is that stated?


Even though the article does not come out and directly say it; it seems to be the general option of many in the respect that the crime was over and the bg was leaving the scene and no other visual threat existed. He chose to go after the bg, even thought he was in within his rights to do so he took a chance of getting shot when he could have just been a witness. Not the brightest thing to do but it was his choice to want and be a hero

Bren
10-23-2011, 14:17
What is the law there on a third party (someone other than the victim) pursuing and using lethal force?

Using KY law as an example - (a) an ordinary citizen can arrest for robbery here; (b) the pursuit probably isn't a crime, regardless of the authority to arrest; and (c) the shooting has to be considered separately, since justification would be judged as of the moment he shot - for example, if he chased the guy down the alley to recover property, but the guy turned with a gun and he then shot him in self-defense, all that counts, legally, is the part where a gun was pointed at him and he would be justified in acting in self-defense. Of course, the possibility exists that he may have given the robber a justification for using force in self-defense, whioch would make it all pretty tricky. In states that require things like retreat, it could also be different.

Based on the story, it could go either way, depending on the small details.

IndyGunFreak
10-23-2011, 14:29
This was not self defense, the guy tried to be a cop and chased after the guy, it was then that the gun fight occurred.

:upeyes:

From a NJ resident no less..

IndyGunFreak
10-23-2011, 14:32
The subject of a Grand Jury does not testify, nor is he even present. A Grand Jury is where the Prosecutor presents the facts to a group of Grand Jurors. He can call witnesses to suport his case, but that's it. Based on that, the Grand Jury decides to "bill" or "no bill" the indictment.

A suspect does not HAVE to testify at a GJ hearing. It's not uncommon if they are WILLING to testify, they can be called as a Prosecution witness.

RussP
10-23-2011, 14:37
Even though the article does not come out and directly say it; it seems to be the general option of many in the respect that the crime was over and the bg was leaving the scene and no other visual threat existed. He chose to go after the bg, even thought he was in within his rights to do so he took a chance of getting shot when he could have just been a witness. Not the brightest thing to do but it was his choice to want and be a hero Well, how about we do this, considering we know nothing about his background, his training and experience. How about, if you disagree with his tactics and decisions, how about you advise people that what he did is not the response you would choose and is not the response you would recommend anyone else take.

How about we get to know more about the gentleman before making all these accusations.

IT0
10-23-2011, 14:41
CC permits are for protection of life, when CCWers start acting like cops and chasing down and killing criminals, there are going to be some public opinion/political issues.

Yes, and if the prosecutor has an agenda, he will need a lawyer.

Also I cant imaging why anyone would want to go through a Grand Jury without representation of some kind.

Whooooosssssshhhh, I think he was making a joke.


Yes... though I meant CCL.

happyguy
10-23-2011, 15:06
be a hero and charge in and you just might be a dead one

this is the best video I could find

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6XDucCdSmA&feature=related

They would all get away.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

mrsurfboard
10-23-2011, 15:20
:upeyes:

From a NJ resident no less..

Not relevant to the debate.

Warp
10-23-2011, 16:12
1. Do you know what a Grand Jury hearing is? He doesn't have to testify at a Grand Jury hearing, therefore, no, he doesn't need a lawyer. There is no "cross examination". It is strictly a Prosecutors tool. They present the facts, Grand Jury decides if there should be charges.

2. I'm thinking once the *facts* are heard(scumbag was on parole for another violent felony, had just pistol whipped a woman in a robbery..) they're gonna be grateful it wasn't their mother that ran into this guy.

3. What on earth does that have to do w/ anything? I've saw nothing said about a CCW badge.

IGF

2. You assume the prosecutor will present all of those facts to the grand jury.

It’s called slicing the pie

And isn't something you should be doing while chasing down an armed man who robbed some lady in your presence. If the guy had shot one of mine, okay yeah maybe then...but not in this case.


The risk/reward is not in your favor.

barstoolguru
10-23-2011, 16:59
Well, how about we do this, considering we know nothing about his background, his training and experience. How about, if you disagree with his tactics and decisions, how about you advise people that what he did is not the response you would choose and is not the response you would recommend anyone else take.

How about we get to know more about the gentleman before making all these accusations.

This web site is all speculation and very little follow up. Someone puts something out and everyone makes a comment or tries to figure it out. This is no different; he went after the man if he was a qualified person! If he was they would have mentioned it but they didn’t so all we can do is speculate that he a “wanna be” because no one is going to get shot over a purse that isn’t even his. The article did not go into detail on his qualifications probably because he didn’t have any (speculation)! Let’s not forget how many “wanna be’s” are out there…. It is ok to speculate from the few facts we did get isn’t it?

IndyGunFreak
10-23-2011, 17:08
2. You assume the prosecutor will present all of those facts to the grand jury.

Oh I totally agree

Warp
10-23-2011, 17:20
It is ok to speculate from the few facts we did get isn’t it?

You know what happens when you assume

barstoolguru
10-23-2011, 17:40
You know what happens when you assume

Speculate - to form a conjecture on the basis of incomplete facts or information

Assume- to accept that something is true without checking or confirming it
sorry bro.... looks like two different meanings to me

Patchman
10-23-2011, 19:13
Yep, a lot of cops have been ambushed chasing perps.

Perp goes around corner.

Cop goes around corner.

Perp is waiting for cop.

Stay safe and take your corners slow and wide.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

Naw. Plenty of posters here on CI will tell you that LEOs and the average Joe Citizen faces exactly the same dangers, day in, day out.

IT0
10-23-2011, 20:02
I am stunned by the legal opinions on this site and have to wonder how many LE are actually just feathering their own beds.

Such as:

1) Should you be involved in a SD shooting, you should give a full statement and tell LE everything without a your lawyer present.

2) Only guilty people need lawyers.

3) You don't need legal council and advice to face a grand jury?

Seriously?

Look, if you are ever in a SD shooting, then you had better get a lawyer, and you had better be ready, because you might beat the rap, but you will NOT beat the ride.

Oh and OT, I am EXTREAMLY uncomfortable with average non-LE citizens chasing down thugs and executing them. They are not LE, they are not judges and they are not a jury....they ARE just one person shy of a mob. Carrying is for SD, not retribution or punishment.

Just my humble opinion, but the moron from the original topic is probably going to learn an very expensive lesson....as he should.

mrsurfboard
10-23-2011, 20:18
Oh and OT, I am EXTREAMLY uncomfortable with average non-LE citizens chasing down thugs and executing them. They are not LE, they are not judges and they are not a jury....they ARE just one person shy of a mob. Carrying is for SD, not retribution or punishment.


:agree: x1000

The last thing those of us who carry want is the public opinion that CC'ers are loose canons looking to take the law into their own hands.

EAJuggalo
10-23-2011, 21:03
Burleigh, I'm going to disagree with you about the attitude of MPD. Since I have become interested in firearms I have had two encounters with MPD, one was trying to get a permit to purchase which ended up being a small ordeal. The other was being taken out of my vehicle, disarmed, my sidearm unloaded and my vehicle searched without permission after being stopped for "failure to come to a complete stop for at least one second" in Edina. My sidearm was returned to me reluctantly with the admonition that I shouldn't carry with one in the chamber and not to load until the Officers' were out of sight.

TDC20, the reason it's questionable is that this is the statute that is relevant.
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

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.

MN also has a duty to retreat and the requirement that for a self-defense claim the actor be an "reluctant participant" which in my mind is difficult to prove when he chased after the dead guy when he was no longer in "imminent threat of death or great bodily harm."

I agree that MPD and Hennepin County letting the guy go without bail is a very good sign but I'd feel much better if this had happened in another county.

MN got Shall issue in 2003 and this is the first time there has been a shooting of a person by a permit holder legally carrying that didn't involve police as well. At least to the best of my knowledge.

crsuribe
10-23-2011, 21:13
It's always a bad idea to shoot folks

Hour13
10-23-2011, 21:55
The permit holder was within his rights to attempt a citizens' arrest but once the dead guy broke off the attack and left the scene he re-established his right to self defense. If the prosecution can get 12 people to agree that the dead guy was in "reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm" than the permit holder is going to go down.

God bless Texas. Here as well, a citizen is authorized to use deadly force to stop the commission of a felony. The difference here?

Escaping the scene is considered part of committing the felony. Equal force is legal, whether the BG is beating somebody with a tire iron, or fleeing the scene after the fact. BG never re-gains his "right to self defense" while in the situation.

Now, if this wasn't a clean shoot, and he executed the BG? Nail his ass to the wall. I don't think that's what happened though.

All that being said, would I do the same, and chase after the guy? I doubt it. But until I watch a 53yr old woman getting pistol whipped by a piece of human trash...

Who's to say?
:dunno:

mrsurfboard
10-24-2011, 00:46
God bless Texas. Here as well, a citizen is authorized to use deadly force to stop the commission of a felony. The difference here?

Escaping the scene is considered part of committing the felony. Equal force is legal, whether the BG is beating somebody with a tire iron, or fleeing the scene after the fact. BG never re-gains his "right to self defense" while in the situation.

Now, if this wasn't a clean shoot, and he executed the BG? Nail his ass to the wall. I don't think that's what happened though.

All that being said, would I do the same, and chase after the guy? I doubt it. But until I watch a 53yr old woman getting pistol whipped by a piece of human trash...



Who's to say?
:dunno:

I would have more impressed if he had stayed and tended to the victim instead of running off to play cop. He didn't even do that well, as a LEO, you first duty is to the victim.

RussP
10-24-2011, 04:38
I would have more impressed if he had stayed and tended to the victim instead of running off to play cop. He didn't even do that well, as a LEO, you first duty is to the victim.How badly was the woman injured?

Did he stop and assess her injury before going after the thief? Did the woman comment on her injury?

Did the woman say anything about the contents of her purse, their value, their importance, that motivated him to retrieve the purse?

RussP
10-24-2011, 04:40
It's always a bad idea to shoot folksYep, it sure is, but circumstances sometimes sadly dictate the need to do so.

RussP
10-24-2011, 04:46
God bless Texas. Here as well, a citizen is authorized to use deadly force to stop the commission of a felony. The difference here?

Escaping the scene is considered part of committing the felony. Equal force is legal, whether the BG is beating somebody with a tire iron, or fleeing the scene after the fact. BG never re-gains his "right to self defense" while in the situation.

Now, if this wasn't a clean shoot, and he executed the BG? Nail his ass to the wall. I don't think that's what happened though.

All that being said, would I do the same, and chase after the guy? I doubt it. But until I watch a 53yr old woman getting pistol whipped by a piece of human trash...

Who's to say?
:dunno:There are a lot of circumstances in cases like this one that only the people involved know. Yes, you may have run scenarios like this through your mind a hundred times, but until it happens, with all the variables of the moment, you, I, really don't know exactly how things will come down.

Well, that is if your options, the options you've allowed yourself, do include intervention. If intervention is not one of your choices, life stays simple.

RussP
10-24-2011, 05:07
I am stunned by the legal opinions on this site and have to wonder how many LE are actually just feathering their own beds.What does "feathering their own beds" mean in your context?Such as:

1) Should you be involved in a SD shooting, you should give a full statement and tell LE everything without a your lawyer present.

2) Only guilty people need lawyers.

3) You don't need legal council and advice to face a grand jury?

Seriously? Who here in this thread is advising any of that...wait..."You don't need legal council..."Yeah, I understand that... it's all about how the Prosecutor presents the facts to the GJ... he still doesn't have to testify, and even if he does, he doesn't really need a lawyer to do it (because if he gets a lawyer, any lawyer is going to tell him NOT to testify at the GJ hearing).IGF, bad advice if you are saying do not get legal representation between the event and the Grand Jury.

ITO, where in this thread has anyone said, "Should you be involved in a SD shooting, you should give a full statement and tell LE everything without a your lawyer present." Or, "Only guilty people need lawyers"?Look, if you are ever in a SD shooting, then you had better get a lawyer, and you had better be ready, because you might beat the rap, but you will NOT beat the ride.Lawyer, absolutely.Oh and OT, I am EXTREAMLY uncomfortable with average non-LE citizens chasing down thugs and executing them. They are not LE, they are not judges and they are not a jury....they ARE just one person shy of a mob. Carrying is for SD, not retribution or punishment.So you are saying the motive here was retribution and punishment?Just my humble opinion, but the moron from the original topic is probably going to learn an very expensive lesson....as he should.Personally, I'll wait until all the facts are made available before trying, convicting and sentencing the guy.

Isn't that your advice, ITO?Oh and OT, I am EXTREAMLY uncomfortable with average non-LE citizens chasing down thugs and executing them. They are not LE, they are not judges and they are not a jury....they ARE just one person shy of a mob. Carrying is for SD, not retribution or punishment.Are you a judge? Are you a jury? You certainly are talking like you are. You and others have already convicted the poor guy.

RussP
10-24-2011, 05:08
Naw. Plenty of posters here on CI will tell you that LEOs and the average Joe Citizen faces exactly the same dangers, day in, day out.It's been a long time, but yes, there use to be some here, a very, very small, uninformed minority, who felt that way.

IT0
10-24-2011, 06:24
What does "feathering their own beds" mean in your context?

I am implying that I have seen advice in the concealed carry form that appeared to come from members of the LE community that seemed very one sided and to only support the idea that the LE community were the best to judge what happened and would support you as long as you made their job as easy as you could.

Specifically there are two threads on this subject but neither show up in the threads list, either because they expired, were deleted or were moved. Maybe you as a moderator would know?

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1373116
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1366582


Who here in this thread is advising any of that...wait..."You don't need legal council..."IGF, bad advice if you are saying do not get legal representation between the event and the Grand Jury. Post# 22
Post# 33

ITO, where in this thread has anyone said, "Should you be involved in a SD shooting, you should give a full statement and tell LE everything without a your lawyer present." Or, "Only guilty people need lawyers"?Lawyer, absolutely. Specifically I said, “I am stunned by the legal opinion give on on this site… refer to my links above.

So you are saying the motive here was retribution and punishment? Personally, I'll wait until all the facts are made available before trying, convicting and sentencing the guy. Wait for all the facts? That is funny, and the same argument I use when I need help in a debated defending something I am probably going to lose. The guy used his gun in something other than self defense, that lone fact is not a mole hill, it is a freak’n huge mountain. Good luck climbing it.

Isn't that your advice, ITO?Are you a judge? Are you a jury? You certainly are talking like you are. You and others have already convicted the poor guy. What a stretch... all OPINIONS posted in this message board are just that, OPINIONS, including the ones you feel free to share. I am not in a position to do ANYTHING to effect this person’s future, and if I were, I would not be here talking to you in public about it.

The “apparent good Samaritan”, chased down and shot a thug over a purse stolen from a woman he did not even know. Are you really comfortable with untrained, armed citizens taking the law into their own hands over simple assault and property theft?

I don’t really have much sympathy for the thug, but hey after your facts come out maybe that will change too….(obvious sarcasm)

And after having seen CCL holders and other gun enthusiast in LGS, at the range, here on the message boards, at gun shows and on YouTube, it scares the crap out of me that some of them think they need a CCL badge and are looking for a reason to enforce the law. Maybe we can further clarify this with some facts later but I stand by my statement that an untrained civilian chasing a thug with a gun is one person short of a mob.

Oh and here is my reference for the carry badges in case anyone else missed the joke.
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1372562

RussP
10-24-2011, 06:26
This web site is all speculation and very little follow up.Okay, why don't we assign you the responsibility to follow this story through to resolution. That sounds like it solves your issue about follow-up!Someone puts something out and everyone makes a comment or tries to figure it out. This is no different; he went after the man if he was a qualified person! If he was they would have mentioned it but they didn’t so all we can do is speculate that he a “wanna be” because no one is going to get shot over a purse that isn’t even his. The article did not go into detail on his qualifications probably because he didn’t have any (speculation)! Let’s not forget how many “wanna be’s” are out there…. It is ok to speculate from the few facts we did get isn’t it? I don't know. How many are there?

RussP
10-24-2011, 07:23
I am implying that I have seen advice in the concealed carry form that appeared to come from members of the LE community that seemed very one sided and to only support the idea that the LE community were the best to judge what happened and would support you as long as you made their job as easy as you could.

Specifically there are two threads on this subject but neither show up in the threads list, either because they expired, were deleted or were moved. Maybe you as a moderator would know?

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1373116
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1366582 Well, the first link is to a closed thread, so we aren't going to discuss it.

Where is the second thread do you see it stated, or implied, "that the LE community were the best to judge what happened and would support you as long as you made their job as easy as you could." Post# 22
Post# 33In post #22, barstoolguru said, "...you don't need a lawyer for a grand jury..." That's true, your attorney does not present your side of the case in a grand jury hearing. Yes you need an attorney between the event and the grand jury, but not for the grand jury.

The same is true for Post #33. Your attorney will not be presenting your case. It is the prosecutors show.Specifically I said, “I am stunned by the legal opinion give on on this site… refer to my links above.Fair enough, site it is. What legal advice is being given, specifically, in the second thread? Remember, we are not going to reopen discussion of the closed thread.Wait for all the facts? That is funny, and the same argument I use when I need help in a debated defending something I am probably going to lose. The guy used his gun in something other than self defense, that lone fact is not a mole hill, it is a freak’n huge mountain. Good luck climbing it.You may use it as an argument where you're probably going to lose. I have learned that until you know all the facts, it's often best not voicing an opinion to be defended. I'll wait.What a stretch... all OPINIONS posted in this message board are just that, OPINIONS, including the ones you feel free to share. I am not in a position to do ANYTHING to effect this person’s future, and if I were, I would not be here talking to you in public about it.Okay...The “apparent good Samaritan”, chased down and shot a thug over a purse stolen from a woman he did not even know. Are you really comfortable with untrained, armed citizens taking the law into their own hands over simple assault and property theft?In general, no, I do not advocate anyone taking the law into their own hands for any reason. However, it all depends on the totality of circumstances of the moment as to whether someone should or shouldn't do what the permit holder did in this situation. I don’t really have much sympathy for the thug, but hey after your facts come out maybe that will change too….(obvious sarcasm)I doubt it will change. Have you googled the thief's name? Have you searched social sites? I doubt you will change your mind.And after having seen CCL holders and other gun enthusiast in LGS, at the range, here on the message boards, at gun shows and on YouTube, it scares the crap out of me that some of them think they need a CCL badge and are looking for a reason to enforce the law. Maybe we can further clarify this with some facts later but I stand by my statement that an untrained civilian chasing a thug with a gun is one person short of a mob.

Oh and here is my reference for the carry badges in case anyone else missed the joke.
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1372562Several years ago there were a couple of serious threads about the need for immediate identification that one was a concealed carry permit/license holder. They centered around active shooters in public places and discussions about whether one should or would try to take out the shooter.

Badges came up in those threads. The consensus was no, they are not a good idea. More recently the CCW sashes came on the scene. These were more a lampoon about those thinking badges were maybe a good idea.

Most threads recently, including the one you linked, are satirical. The OP in your thread makes it obvious he is not serious.

Hour13
10-24-2011, 11:32
I would have more impressed if he had stayed and tended to the victim instead of running off to play cop. He didn't even do that well, as a LEO, you first duty is to the victim.

Agreed. But again, he's not LE.
Hundred ways this could've gone down, it's a tough one, a lot of variables. BG breaks into house, citizen shoots BG. Those are the easy ones to call. Third party victim situations are often much more complex.

It's easy to play armchair warrior, "He could've done this, he should've done that".

But we weren't there.

mrsurfboard
10-24-2011, 11:40
Agreed. But again, he's not LE.
Hundred ways this could've gone down, it's a tough one, a lot of variables. BG breaks into house, citizen shoots BG. Those are the easy ones to call. Third party victim situations are often much more complex.

It's easy to play armchair warrior, "He could've done this, he should've done that".

But we weren't there.

He doesn't have to be LE, the human thing to do is to render assistance to the woman who was just "pistol whipped", not run after the bad guy.

TDC20
10-24-2011, 22:31
What they didn't say in this story is that the "hero wannabe" was actually a Navy SEAL home on leave. This guy had won the Navy Cross and two Silver stars for gallantry in action behind enemy lines in places where he never officially was. When he heard the woman scream, he looked over and saw the perp hit her in the head, but he didn't see that he hit her with a pistol because he was too far away, so he didn't know the guy was armed. His first reaction was to run to the woman to render assistance, but there were others closer to her that were already attending to her, so he took off after the perp. The perp headed behind the store, but once he knew he was going to be caught, he stopped, turned, and took a shot at the Navy SEAL, who quickly drew his own M1911 from concealment and fired a quick double tap, the first shot striking the perp in the heart and the second shot in the forehead, blowing his brains out the back of his skull, ending the confrontation.

How do I know this? The same way some of you seem to know that he was a cop wannabe, didn't attend to the victim, knew that the perp was actually armed before giving chase, and then executed the guy in the back alley.

There, I felt I needed to post some of my own speculation on behalf of the CCW'er to even things up a little bit.

You may continue talking out your arses now!

Warp
10-24-2011, 23:09
What they didn't say in this story is that the "hero wannabe" was actually a Navy SEAL home on leave. This guy had won the Navy Cross and two Silver stars for gallantry in action behind enemy lines in places where he never officially was. When he heard the woman scream, he looked over and saw the perp hit her in the head, but he didn't see that he hit her with a pistol because he was too far away, so he didn't know the guy was armed. His first reaction was to run to the woman to render assistance, but there were others closer to her that were already attending to her, so he took off after the perp. The perp headed behind the store, but once he knew he was going to be caught, he stopped, turned, and took a shot at the Navy SEAL, who quickly drew his own M1911 from concealment and fired a quick double tap, the first shot striking the perp in the heart and the second shot in the forehead, blowing his brains out the back of his skull, ending the confrontation.

How do I know this? The same way some of you seem to know that he was a cop wannabe, didn't attend to the victim, knew that the perp was actually armed before giving chase, and then executed the guy in the back alley.

There, I felt I needed to post some of my own speculation on behalf of the CCW'er to even things up a little bit.

You may continue talking out your arses now!


You win 3 internets. :)

RoadGlide
10-25-2011, 01:36
Why speculate?
Ask the BG what happened!
Oh wait......he can't talk!
Sorry..............NOT!

jhoagland
10-25-2011, 01:43
What they didn't say in this story is that the "hero wannabe" was actually a Navy SEAL home on leave. This guy had won the Navy Cross and two Silver stars for gallantry in action behind enemy lines in places where he never officially was. When he heard the woman scream, he looked over and saw the perp hit her in the head, but he didn't see that he hit her with a pistol because he was too far away, so he didn't know the guy was armed. His first reaction was to run to the woman to render assistance, but there were others closer to her that were already attending to her, so he took off after the perp. The perp headed behind the store, but once he knew he was going to be caught, he stopped, turned, and took a shot at the Navy SEAL, who quickly drew his own M1911 from concealment and fired a quick double tap, the first shot striking the perp in the heart and the second shot in the forehead, blowing his brains out the back of his skull, ending the confrontation.

How do I know this? The same way some of you seem to know that he was a cop wannabe, didn't attend to the victim, knew that the perp was actually armed before giving chase, and then executed the guy in the back alley.

There, I felt I needed to post some of my own speculation on behalf of the CCW'er to even things up a little bit.

You may continue talking out your arses now!


Nicely done!!:supergrin:

RussP
10-25-2011, 05:58
What they didn't say in this story is that the "hero wannabe" was actually a Navy SEAL home on leave. This guy had won the Navy Cross and two Silver stars for gallantry in action behind enemy lines in places where he never officially was. When he heard the woman scream, he looked over and saw the perp hit her in the head, but he didn't see that he hit her with a pistol because he was too far away, so he didn't know the guy was armed. His first reaction was to run to the woman to render assistance, but there were others closer to her that were already attending to her, so he took off after the perp. The perp headed behind the store, but once he knew he was going to be caught, he stopped, turned, and took a shot at the Navy SEAL, who quickly drew his own M1911 from concealment and fired a quick double tap, the first shot striking the perp in the heart and the second shot in the forehead, blowing his brains out the back of his skull, ending the confrontation.

How do I know this? The same way some of you seem to know that he was a cop wannabe, didn't attend to the victim, knew that the perp was actually armed before giving chase, and then executed the guy in the back alley.

There, I felt I needed to post some of my own speculation on behalf of the CCW'er to even things up a little bit.

You may continue talking out your arses now!Thank you for speculation from the other side... :cool:

LongGoneDays
10-25-2011, 06:36
I need to hire a midget to read long posts ahead of me and warn me of the ones to avoid.

barstoolguru
10-25-2011, 07:13
What they didn't say in this story is that the "hero wannabe" was actually a Navy SEAL home on leave. This guy had won the Navy Cross and two Silver stars for gallantry in action behind enemy lines in places where he never officially was. When he heard the woman scream, he looked over and saw the perp hit her in the head, but he didn't see that he hit her with a pistol because he was too far away, so he didn't know the guy was armed. His first reaction was to run to the woman to render assistance, but there were others closer to her that were already attending to her, so he took off after the perp. The perp headed behind the store, but once he knew he was going to be caught, he stopped, turned, and took a shot at the Navy SEAL, who quickly drew his own M1911 from concealment and fired a quick double tap, the first shot striking the perp in the heart and the second shot in the forehead, blowing his brains out the back of his skull, ending the confrontation.

How do I know this? The same way some of you seem to know that he was a cop wannabe, didn't attend to the victim, knew that the perp was actually armed before giving chase, and then executed the guy in the back alley.

There, I felt I needed to post some of my own speculation on behalf of the CCW'er to even things up a little bit.

You may continue talking out your arses now!


now that we know the truth you all can jump over to the pie crust tread and when you are done there some one want to talk about hot dogs. me I find it more inttesting talking about what if's and what should have been done's and the why's

Master_Blaster1911
10-25-2011, 07:34
What they didn't say in this story is that the "hero wannabe" was actually a Navy SEAL home on leave. This guy had won the Navy Cross and two Silver stars for gallantry in action behind enemy lines in places where he never officially was. When he heard the woman scream, he looked over and saw the perp hit her in the head, but he didn't see that he hit her with a pistol because he was too far away, so he didn't know the guy was armed. His first reaction was to run to the woman to render assistance, but there were others closer to her that were already attending to her, so he took off after the perp. The perp headed behind the store, but once he knew he was going to be caught, he stopped, turned, and took a shot at the Navy SEAL, who quickly drew his own M1911 from concealment and fired a quick double tap, the first shot striking the perp in the heart and the second shot in the forehead, blowing his brains out the back of his skull, ending the confrontation.

How do I know this? The same way some of you seem to know that he was a cop wannabe, didn't attend to the victim, knew that the perp was actually armed before giving chase, and then executed the guy in the back alley.

There, I felt I needed to post some of my own speculation on behalf of the CCW'er to even things up a little bit.

You may continue talking out your arses now!


Hear! Hear!

Thank you and God bless you!

Anybody who will do for another as they would do for their own is a "wannabe Hero."

Cowards who let others suffer the predation of criminals are our role models... oh very sad.

I hear it said, "They had the same opportunity to get a license as did I, they didn't; screw 'em." And for that they deserve to die? Be robbed? Be raped?

Some need to admit the reason they won't come to the aid of another "not your own" is fear. Fear of doing the right thing, to come to the aid of another is cowardice. A coward shows ignoble fear. We've about lost all nobility in our society. It is noble to come to the aid of another, but too many are cowered by their ignoble fear. (Probably the plan of the commies and liberals from the start)

/rant

Steve50
10-25-2011, 07:44
It's always a bad idea to shoot folks

Except when it's a good idea..

Burleigh
10-25-2011, 12:17
Mas Ayoob has an interesting article in the Combat Handguns magazine that came yesterday. He reviews four shootings where citizens went after perps as they were fleeing. While it may sometimes be legal for citizens to pursue he describes the heavy price that is often exacted . Ayoob's advice is not to pursue unless there is a clearly articulable reason to believe that danger to an innocent is immanent. I hope I've summarized this accurately. This thought provoking article is well worth reading.

IT0
10-25-2011, 13:14
What they didn't say in this story is that the "hero wannabe" was actually a Navy SEAL home on leave. This guy had won the Navy Cross and two Silver stars for gallantry in action behind enemy lines in places where he never officially was. When he heard the woman scream, he looked over and saw the perp hit her in the head, but he didn't see that he hit her with a pistol because he was too far away, so he didn't know the guy was armed. His first reaction was to run to the woman to render assistance, but there were others closer to her that were already attending to her, so he took off after the perp. The perp headed behind the store, but once he knew he was going to be caught, he stopped, turned, and took a shot at the Navy SEAL, who quickly drew his own M1911 from concealment and fired a quick double tap, the first shot striking the perp in the heart and the second shot in the forehead, blowing his brains out the back of his skull, ending the confrontation.

How do I know this? The same way some of you seem to know that he was a cop wannabe, didn't attend to the victim, knew that the perp was actually armed before giving chase, and then executed the guy in the back alley.

There, I felt I needed to post some of my own speculation on behalf of the CCW'er to even things up a little bit.

You may continue talking out your arses now!

Sounds more like the closing arguments from his lawyer.

Ummagumma
10-25-2011, 14:03
Let's wait for more information.

From the limited amount of info that we do have, it does seem the guy went out of his way to escalate things. As a minimum this wasn't wise.

happyguy
10-25-2011, 15:12
Personally I'm OK with shooting someone who would hit a woman over the head and steal her purse. It might cut down on crime a little if it happened more often.

Unfortunately if there isn't more to the story the guy could be in deep kimchee.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

Bruce M
10-25-2011, 16:44
...
Unfortunately if there isn't more to the story the guy could be in deep kimchee.

Regards,
Happyguy :)


And while my experience with these things is highly limited, and may well not be a true representation, from my viewpoint the deeper the kimchee might be, the higher the cost of a potentially successful defense.

JK-linux
10-25-2011, 16:57
MN could have passed a stand your ground law in the last session but were betrayed by both parties. The Republican leadership still refuses to even tell members in the legislature from their own party why they dumped the legislation at the last moment. The good guy would probably have been in a stronger position had the law passed.

Here, here. I saw the post on mnguntalk.com and sent my emails off to the legislators to push for it. It seemed like it worked once when they said they'd support putting it into the schedule. Then, it just disappeared under the cloud of all the budget BS that was going on. Neither R or D gets a pass from me on that debacle. While I generally get replies to the few emails I send to my legislators, they never reply to anything related to stand you ground anymore. Nothing. I have no interest in ever having to test the MN CCW or self defense laws and wish this fellow (the Good Samaritan shooter) the best.

Misty02
10-25-2011, 23:42
After reading the remainder of the thread it would be funny if at the end of the day it turns out that the man that stopped the mugger is either active or retired from some law enforcement branch and he just shot the mugger once he turned and threatened him. :)

.

TDC20
10-26-2011, 00:40
Just for the record, I think what this guy did was very unwise. I'm 99% sure that I wouldn't do what he did, because, yes, I'm a coward. I'm afraid of the legal issues, expenses, possible prison term, not to mention the risk of dying for bringing someone to justice after the crime was already committed (i.e., as opposed to stopping a crime from being committed). I would never recommend or advocate for what this guy did.

That being said, it looks like this one might just be a rare victory for the good guys. There are so many unknown details to this story. If this guy turns out to be an Eagle Scout, military, retired LE, whatever, I would hope that he would have the support of (at the very least) the CCW community. We all know there will be a lot of anti-gun, anti-CCW people on the attack in this case. My opinion of them is that they prefer crime to law and order, but that's just MHO.

My personal opinion is what he did was indeed heroic. It's why I have such a high level of respect for LEO's that would do the same, and not because they get paid anywhere near enough to risk their lives to do so. If you want criminals off the street, someone has to take an action. There aren't enough police officers to be everywhere all the time. Criminals will not usually commit crimes in the presence of LEO's, so their job is often responding to the victims after the fact. You may not support this man's actions, but he did the morally right thing. It's a shame that we don't have "stand your ground" laws and Castle doctrine in all 50 states. The laws should be on the side of the law-abiding, not designed to protect the "rights" of criminals (respecting, of course, that everyone has certain rights and is innocent until proven guilty).

I truly hope I'm never, never, ever involved in a SD shooting. I would never want some of the people who post here on my jury. I just hope that this guy gets about half a dozen 50-55yr old women on his grand jury, and if it goes to trial, trial jury too.

It's truly a shame that someone, even someone committing a crime, had to lose their life over this. Hopefully, his friends will learn the lesson that crime doesn't pay, maybe get help with their drug habits, and lead productive lives rather than the possibility of running into an armed citizen in their current "occupation." That's really about the only good thing that might come of this.

JuneyBooney
10-26-2011, 00:59
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/132311553.html

Moderator Note: Quoting copyrighted material is not permitted on Glock Talk.

Wasn't there a thread on here the other night about this type of scenario? :wow:

barstoolguru
10-26-2011, 08:01
good job.... made me laugh hard out my arses (not spelled correctly)

It is arsis and in has nothing to do with the buttocks

Arsis: in classical Greek and Roman verse, the short syllable or syllables in a metrical foot. as TDC20 said

we can only speculate that he meant arse (correct spelling

sourdough44
10-26-2011, 08:04
Sorry, didn't read all the pages. Just what if the guy chased the robber, to try to get the lady's purse back? Maybe at the time he didn't know the other was armed, or even if he did, went anyway. Then when he caught up to the perp, the bad guy turns & pulls a gun?

It may not be that he chased the guy to gun him down, just ended up as 'self-defense' once he caught him? Just speculation, details will emerge.

IT0
10-26-2011, 08:09
The fact that LE labeled him as a "Good Samaritan", did not make an arrest, and have deliberately not released his name, makes me wonder about the rest of the story.

barstoolguru
10-26-2011, 09:03
I did a quick search and couldn't find the armed citizen's name but this news channel gives a better idea to SPECULATE on. The witness said he heard 4-5 shots so a gun battle ensued

http://www.kare11.com/news/article/943338/14/Self-defense-or-vigilante-justice-Man-shoots-kills-armed-robber

RussP
10-26-2011, 09:51
I did a quick search and couldn't find the armed citizen's name but this news channel gives a better idea to SPECULATE on. The witness said he heard 4-5 shots so a gun battle ensued

http://www.kare11.com/news/article/943338/14/Self-defense-or-vigilante-justice-Man-shoots-kills-armed-robberDon't know why your link isn't a link... http://www.kare11.com/news/article/943338/14/Self-defense-or-vigilante-justice-Man-shoots-kills-armed-robber

After the initial comments by police, this is the "vigilante justice, possibility of personal injury and injury to others" warning comments we usually hear in the first reports.

This article also stresses the "reasonableness" test.

Also, they may not release his name until after the grand jury rules on the case.

barstoolguru
10-26-2011, 10:10
With all this ITO posted I think if they did release his name it would be a circus and possibly retaliation from his gang banging family

IT0
10-26-2011, 11:11
With all this ITO posted I think if they did release his name it would be a circus and possibly retaliation from his gang banging family

After reading all the garbage about this from multiple sites, yes I can see that too. What really put me off was when his mother went off about "judge, jurry and executioner" (one or my quotes), then in the same sentence said she cant say anything about the mugging. It was like the mugging part is being glossed over by the supporters as if it is an every day minor occurrence.

While I do not support the idea of chasing a thug down, and still think the shooter lacked some judgement, I also think the attitude from the left and other thugs on this is disgusting.

Warp
10-26-2011, 11:17
Let's wait for more information.

From the limited amount of info that we do have, it does seem the guy went out of his way to escalate things. As a minimum this wasn't wise.

I agree, it sounds as though it was not wise.

I don't know that he escalated anything, though.

RussP
10-26-2011, 13:04
...I also think the attitude from the left and other thugs on this is disgusting.Who have you identified as being "from the left"?

RussP
10-26-2011, 13:21
Folks, I had to remove ITO's post with links to different Facebook and MySpace pages. Images and language on those pages violate GT posting rules. The offending posts appeared after ITO posted the links. No foul on his part.

Here are the other links in ITO's post that are, for now, GT friendly and his commentary:So what do we really know? Well with a little help from Google, it is not hard to see the guy who was shot (Darren Evanovich) really was a thug:

Darren Evanovich’s Facebook Page:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002904876769&sk=info

Bleeding Heart Piece:
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/10/24/dead-robbery-suspect%E2%80%99s-mom-%E2%80%98my-son-was-the-victim%E2%80%99/

A few more details, but not really helpful:
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/10/21/police-%E2%80%98good-samaritan%E2%80%99-shoots-kills-alleged-robber/

This site appears to have started aggregating the news stories an follow up.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/020797.html

It also appears the Darren’s sister (Octavia) was with her bother at the time of the robbery:
http://kstc45.com/article/stories/S2344513.shtml?cat=10905

She has a Myspace page too:
http://www.myspace.com/sexytaya1991

So even if he does somehow get a no bill, can he be sued in civil court in MN? Because it looks like even if there are no charges there may still be some legal problems for him down the road if he family take him court.

IT0
10-26-2011, 13:47
Who have you identified as being "from the left"?

I found some anti-gun, left wing, liberal blogs that are tracking and discussing this issue, and chose not to link them because it would only help to spread their message.

EAJuggalo
10-26-2011, 21:28
The sister of the mugger has been arrested for aiding and abetting her brother. She may also face second degree murder charges in his death.

http://southeast.kstp.com/news/news/110940-sister-robber-shot-and-killed-mpls-arrested

There have been quite a few threats to the permit holder made on the Facebook page as well as one against white people in general.

Warp
10-26-2011, 21:40
Of course there have.

Good on the police for arresting the sister and hopefully she does get slapped with serious charges.

IndyGunFreak
10-27-2011, 06:24
Post# 22
Post# 33


I was going to inform you that you completely misunderstood my post, but RussP already did.

RussP
10-27-2011, 07:37
Mom seems to be acquainted with law enforcement as well.

http://eastsidedefender.com/node/275 Scroll half way down the page...January 6, 2009

2009000534 EVANOVICH, MARY LEE 3/31/1971 2315 FILLMORE ST NE, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55418 1/6/2009 15:03 (Previous Convictions: Drugs-5th Deg-Poss Sch 1,2,3,4-Not Small Amt Marij)
Property Owner Name: Mark Matasovsky/Mary Junge 2200 Johnson St N E Minneapolis Mn 55418
Arrested for: DRUGS - 3RD DEGREE - SALE – NARCOTIC, DRUGS - 5TH DEGREE - POSSESS SCHEDULE 1,2,3,4 - NOT SMALL AMOUNT MARIJUANA

EAJuggalo
10-28-2011, 07:10
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/132754113.html

From today's Minneapolis Star Tribune. Video taken Oct. 11 or about a week before he caused his own death.

To answere ITO's question from a previous post. Here is the Statute that should cover the permit holder from civil liability.

611A.08 BARRING PERPETRATORS OF CRIMES FROM RECOVERING FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED DURING CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
Subdivision 1.Definitions.

As used in this section:

(1) "perpetrator" means a person who has engaged in criminal conduct and includes a person convicted of a crime;

(2) "victim" means a person who was the object of another's criminal conduct and includes a person at the scene of an emergency who gives reasonable assistance to another person who is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm;

(3) "course of criminal conduct" includes the acts or omissions of a victim in resisting criminal conduct; and

(4) "convicted" includes a finding of guilt, whether or not the adjudication of guilt is stayed or executed, an unwithdrawn judicial admission of guilt or guilty plea, a no contest plea, a judgment of conviction, an adjudication as a delinquent child, an admission to a juvenile delinquency petition, or a disposition as an extended jurisdiction juvenile.
Subd. 2.Perpetrator's assumption of risk.

A perpetrator assumes the risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from or arising out of a course of criminal conduct involving a violent crime, as defined in this section, engaged in by the perpetrator or an accomplice, as defined in section 609.05, and the crime victim is immune from and not liable for any civil damages as a result of acts or omissions of the victim if the victim used reasonable force as authorized in section 609.06 or 609.065.
Subd. 3.Evidence.

Notwithstanding other evidence which the victim may adduce relating to the perpetrator's conviction of the violent crime involving the parties to the civil action, a certified copy of: a guilty plea; a court judgment of guilt; a court record of conviction as specified in section 599.24, 599.25, or 609.041; an adjudication as a delinquent child; or a disposition as an extended jurisdiction juvenile pursuant to section 260B.130 is conclusive proof of the perpetrator's assumption of the risk.
Subd. 4.Attorney fees to victim.

If the perpetrator does not prevail in a civil action that is subject to this section, the court may award reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees and disbursements, to the victim.
Subd. 5.Stay of civil action.

Except to the extent needed to preserve evidence, any civil action in which the defense set forth in subdivision 1 or 2 is raised shall be stayed by the court on the motion of the defendant during the pendency of any criminal action against the plaintiff based on the alleged violent crime.
Subd. 6.Violent crime; definition.

For purposes of this section, "violent crime" means an offense named in sections 609.185; 609.19; 609.195; 609.20; 609.205; 609.221; 609.222; 609.223; 609.2231; 609.24; 609.245; 609.25; 609.255; 609.342; 609.343; 609.344; 609.345; 609.561; 609.562; 609.563; and 609.582, or an attempt to commit any of these offenses. "Violent crime" includes crimes in other states or jurisdictions which would have been within the definition set forth in this subdivision if they had been committed in this state.

Warp
10-28-2011, 07:49
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/132754113.html

From today's Minneapolis Star Tribune. Video taken Oct. 11 or about a week before he caused his own death.

To answere ITO's question from a previous post. Here is the Statute that should cover the permit holder from civil liability.

:rofl:

So the guy who got himself shot after armed robbery/battery/pistol whipping an old lady was only 9 days removed from making a video intended to deter others from crime?

:rofl:

Good riddance


Edit: I read more of that. He was on probation for attempted first degree aggravated robbery and simple robbery for the interview. Assuming his probation didn't happen to run out within 9 days of that he would have been on probation for first degree aggravated robbery when he was shot for...well, you know.

IT0
10-28-2011, 08:42
The sister's Facebook page says she graduated in 2010, and has pictures of her an a newborn baby. That would put her in between 19 to 21 with a new baby, and about to go to jail. It looks like the cycle is about to start all over again.

MrKandiyohi
10-28-2011, 13:56
County Attorney decided not to charge the CCW holder.

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/132807258.html

There were 2 others - his sister and another guy - involved with this and other robberies. Looks like sis might be going to jail.

barstoolguru
10-28-2011, 14:09
good news and they got the sister off the street to

tonyparson
10-28-2011, 14:10
County Attorney decided not to charge the CCW holder.

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/132807258.html

There were 2 others - his sister and another guy - involved with this and other robberies. Looks like sis might be going to jail.

Very good news..

RussP
10-28-2011, 14:14
County Attorney decided not to charge the CCW holder.

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/132807258.html

There were 2 others - his sister and another guy - involved with this and other robberies. Looks like sis might be going to jail.Excellent!!

IT0
10-28-2011, 14:47
WOW... more details but we still don't know much.

glockman66
10-30-2011, 18:50
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/29/hennepin-county-makes-the-right-choice-in-good-samaritan-shooting/
Hennepin County makes the right choice in Good Samaritan shooting
posted at 1:15 pm on October 29, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

RussP
10-30-2011, 19:30
Good article, thanks for posting the link.

larry_minn
10-30-2011, 21:14
I keep waiting to hear that his sister and mother are charged as well. It sounds like the siser was there/assisting in armed robbery/assult/etc. A death occured as a result, she should be charged as such. (don't recall exactly what MN calls it) Felony manslaughter?

Then I understand the "mother" was partner in "team" She cashed checks/ used charge cards her "children" stole for her.. Hopefully she can also be charged as she was member of "gang" that used force/deadly weapons, a death happened......

IndyGunFreak
10-31-2011, 03:34
I keep waiting to hear that his sister and mother are charged as well. It sounds like the siser was there/assisting in armed robbery/assult/etc. A death occured as a result, she should be charged as such. (don't recall exactly what MN calls it) Felony manslaughter?

Most of the time, it's felony murder. Most states have a law similar to this on the books... I know Indiana does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

IT0
10-31-2011, 06:42
I am glad it ended well for the guy, but I still think it was stupid to go after the thug.

EAJuggalo
10-31-2011, 07:15
I keep waiting to hear that his sister and mother are charged as well. It sounds like the siser was there/assisting in armed robbery/assult/etc. A death occured as a result, she should be charged as such. (don't recall exactly what MN calls it) Felony manslaughter?

Then I understand the "mother" was partner in "team" She cashed checks/ used charge cards her "children" stole for her.. Hopefully she can also be charged as she was member of "gang" that used force/deadly weapons, a death happened......

Second Degree Murder is what it falls under. I don't think we'll hear about it if either does face those charges, not much of a story.

steveksux
10-31-2011, 18:03
County Attorney decided not to charge the CCW holder.

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/132807258.html

There were 2 others - his sister and another guy - involved with this and other robberies. Looks like sis might be going to jail.

Sis ought to go to jail for felony murder of her beloved brother...

Did anyone else notice in that article that 1) Sis has a different last name than bro and 2) Moms was caught on surveillance tape using one of the stolen checks too?

Looks like Moms ought to get locked up does the county jail have a family plan?

Randy

IT0
11-01-2011, 06:53
In my line of work we have built a few jails, and I have spent a lot of time working in and around them. Typically visitor and contractors enter through the visitor center.

On one of my trips to the jail for a walkthrough and systems check, I was in the sally port with my escort and a woman with two kids. Once in the secure area she met with her husband, handed the kids over and he took them to the sally port while one of the officers took the women to a room where they take new detainees.

When I gave the officer escorting me an odd WTF look, he just laughed and said, “You know what they say, families that steal together, stay together”. He then explained the judge had staggered their sentences so they could keep their kids out of the foster care system.

It does not surprise me that Evanovish’s mother is part of the problem, and it explains why she did not have anything to say about the robbery.

EAJuggalo
11-01-2011, 07:25
I've been hearing speculation that the county attorney is not prosecuting the sister for anything that happened in the incident yet. They are going to wait until the fervor dies down before they have to out the permit holder. There is more than enough to hold her for a while on the other robberies. I think we'll hear about this in a year or two when she gets charged for those crimes.

larry_minn
11-01-2011, 10:15
I must admit I hope they can keep the "good guys" ID secret. Not just for a few months but forever.
I have done some things that were "the right thing to do" But I do NOT want friends, neighbors, even family to know I had to make that decision....

Nothing good can come of the public (and esp this extended criminal family) knowing who he is....

There are many "mental health professionals" he can see (If he wants/needs) for his own reasons. I went 150 miles away from home to chat with a Priest. (basicly no way it could get back) Sadly some members of cloth do NOT take "vow of silence" seriously.

Folks talk about "buying him a beer" Realize he was forced to shoot another person. (leaving out if good idea to chase) Unless you have been close to that......
Plus add on that he knows it could have been avoided. He could have called 911 on his cell,wait with injured and everyone would say "you did the right thing"
He is the victim. Hope he is ok.

RussP
11-01-2011, 12:24
I must admit I hope they can keep the "good guys" ID secret. Not just for a few months but forever.
I have done some things that were "the right thing to do" But I do NOT want friends, neighbors, even family to know I had to make that decision....

Nothing good can come of the public (and esp this extended criminal family) knowing who he is....

There are many "mental health professionals" he can see (If he wants/needs) for his own reasons. I went 150 miles away from home to chat with a Priest. (basicly no way it could get back) Sadly some members of cloth do NOT take "vow of silence" seriously.

Folks talk about "buying him a beer" Realize he was forced to shoot another person. (leaving out if good idea to chase) Unless you have been close to that......
Plus add on that he knows it could have been avoided. He could have called 911 on his cell,wait with injured and everyone would say "you did the right thing"
He is the victim. Hope he is ok.Good post, good advice.

barstoolguru
11-01-2011, 16:37
I must admit I hope they can keep the "good guys" ID secret. Not just for a few months but forever.
I have done some things that were "the right thing to do" But I do NOT want friends, neighbors, even family to know I had to make that decision....

Nothing good can come of the public (and esp this extended criminal family) knowing who he is....

There are many "mental health professionals" he can see (If he wants/needs) for his own reasons. I went 150 miles away from home to chat with a Priest. (basicly no way it could get back) Sadly some members of cloth do NOT take "vow of silence" seriously.

Folks talk about "buying him a beer" Realize he was forced to shoot another person. (leaving out if good idea to chase) Unless you have been close to that......
Plus add on that he knows it could have been avoided. He could have called 911 on his cell,wait with injured and everyone would say "you did the right thing"
He is the victim. Hope he is ok.

Here is a good point... when you carry a gun you better be prepared to use it and stop being a wimp. If you don't have the balls to pull the trigger leave the gun at home.
This man RAN after the BG, do you really think he is shook up for shooting him I doubt it. He took a punk off the street and stopped a crime spree… heck yea I would buy him a beer and pat him on the back too.

Lord
11-01-2011, 20:40
Russ, that is the question that the Grand Jury and probably a trial jury are going to have to decide. The permit holder was within his rights to attempt a citizens' arrest but once the dead guy broke off the attack and left the scene he re-established his right to self defense. If the prosecution can get 12 people to agree that the dead guy was in "reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm" than the permit holder is going to go down. I think if we find out the permit holder had drawn before turning the corner of the building he's screwed. In order for him to come away clean the investigation is going to have to find that he drew after the dead guy raised his weapon. One other thing to throw in, this happened in Hennepin County which runs about 75-80 percent anti-gun in the first place.

That could be arguable. Here in TX we have the right to "active pursuit". Couple this with the "defense of a third party", which the code that RussP posted indicates... if it were TX, there'd be virtually no question that it's a clean shoot. The area that needs to be defined is the "active pursuit" for that state. I think the guy will be in the clear.

TBO
04-21-2012, 13:38
Sis went down for Agg Robbery.

NEOH212
04-21-2012, 14:28
Concealed Carry Permit holders need to remember they are not the police and need to stop acting like they are.

I see a ugly trend starting that I hope stops before it destroys Concealed Carry for everyone. I'm not saying this thug didn't deserve to get shot. What I am saying is that the Permit Holder shouldn't have perused the subject.

At that point he's the aggressor and there wasn't any immediate threat to anyone's life. Am I saying the shooter needs to be charged with a crime? Not necessarily but I don't think his actions of perusing the perp were justified.

It doesn't sound like a clean shoot to me simply on the grounds that the Permit Holder pursued the subject after the threat went away.

I think the Permit Holder did a good thing but in the eyes of the law I'm afraid it may not be seen that way.

I hope the best for the shooter. I hope he doesn't see prison.

It all comes down to what the law says. If the law allows for what he did, he will be ok. If not.......

Warp
04-21-2012, 14:38
Sis went down for Agg Robbery.

Good.

HexHead
04-21-2012, 14:38
Evanovich? Good thing he wasn't black.

IndyGunFreak
04-21-2012, 15:03
41 months, given the circumstances, is ridiculously low.

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/139455273.html

TBO
04-21-2012, 15:56
Welcome to MN.

IndyGunFreak
04-22-2012, 05:10
Evanovich? Good thing he wasn't black.

Not sure what this means.. IIRC, he was black.

Misty02
04-22-2012, 06:47
41 months, given the circumstances, is ridiculously low.

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/139455273.html

I wonder why she didn’t get tagged with her brother’s murder as well considering she was present and both were apparently involved in committing the illegal act.

.

IndyGunFreak
04-22-2012, 10:43
I wonder why she didn’t get tagged with her brother’s murder as well considering she was present and both were apparently involved in committing the illegal act.

.

Honestly? Probably because she's female (not being a sexist, just an observation I've made over the years).

In cases like this, to often the female is portrayed as "another victim" who is simply doing what she has been told by some BF/Husband/Father/etc..

Obviously the fact she committed several robberies, etc.. it should blow this argument out of the water... unless a crime is particularly heinous, judges seem reluctant to give women an extensive amount of time in prison.

Regardless, I hope she makes a definite change in her life after this, but I doubt it. I just hope someone innocent doesn't end up dead when she goes on her next robbing spree when she gets out of prison.

IGF

janice6
04-22-2012, 11:02
I just read the conclusion of this event here and I have to say, I am pleased.

I still question chasing down a criminal, but under these particular circumstances it was determined to be a good shoot.

If a few more "thugs" get shot while performing their "business", maybe it will be safer for the public. Nothing worse then hearing, he got away. Hope it is always a "good shoot"..........


Now about the protection against a Civil Suit in the event of a justified result..............(Not with the lib Dayton in office)

Misty02
04-22-2012, 15:53
Honestly? Probably because she's female (not being a sexist, just an observation I've made over the years).

In cases like this, to often the female is portrayed as "another victim" who is simply doing what she has been told by some BF/Husband/Father/etc..

Obviously the fact she committed several robberies, etc.. it should blow this argument out of the water... unless a crime is particularly heinous, judges seem reluctant to give women an extensive amount of time in prison.

Regardless, I hope she makes a definite change in her life after this, but I doubt it. I just hope someone innocent doesn't end up dead when she goes on her next robbing spree when she gets out of prison.

IGF

Well, that is sexist. There should be no differentiation on the penalty because she is female. Didn’t we supposedly get rid of those double standards?

svtpwnz
04-22-2012, 17:46
"I ran after him to try and get a description of him for the police, and next thing I knew, he turned on me with the gun"

There could be a million scenarios as to why the person fired. Guy was on probation for another violent felony, had just committed another (and who knows how many he committed and just didn't get caught)

No sympathy from me, even if he shot the guy in the back. Only way I'd have a problem with this, if the bad guy surrendered and he more or less executed him.

IGF


:agree: This dirtbag had this coming to him!

EAJuggalo
04-23-2012, 06:26
Now about the protection against a Civil Suit in the event of a justified result..............(Not with the lib Dayton in office)

In theory we already have it since if it's a legit shooting the person getting shot was in the commission of a crime which bars them from receiving damages.

NEOH, this case has already been decided from the DA's office, no charges pressed against the permit holder. And having a carry permit does not take away your right to make a citizen's arrest in MN which was perfectly legal action in this case.

Misty, as I stated above, I think she will in a year or two after the fervor dies down. Or if the permit holder ever gets outed in the media. They need him to make the case against the sister which might at this point put his life in danger.

Larry_Minn, I'm shocked that the shooter's identity hasn't come out yet. I know a couple people who know his name and one that has met with him but none are discussing it, even six months after the fact.

RussP
04-23-2012, 09:11
Larry_Minn, I'm shocked that the shooter's identity hasn't come out yet. I know a couple people who know his name and one that has met with him but none are discussing it, even six months after the fact.There are times when remaining unnamed is a very, very wise move.

Misty02
04-23-2012, 13:30
In theory we already have it since if it's a legit shooting the person getting shot was in the commission of a crime which bars them from receiving damages.

NEOH, this case has already been decided from the DA's office, no charges pressed against the permit holder. And having a carry permit does not take away your right to make a citizen's arrest in MN which was perfectly legal action in this case.

Misty, as I stated above, I think she will in a year or two after the fervor dies down. Or if the permit holder ever gets outed in the media. They need him to make the case against the sister which might at this point put his life in danger.

Larry_Minn, I'm shocked that the shooter's identity hasn't come out yet. I know a couple people who know his name and one that has met with him but none are discussing it, even six months after the fact.


Make it a life time and it’s still not long enough to keep something like that quiet.

We should keep in mind that there is no statute of limitation on murder. I could be wrong, but the way I see it, even if his actions were declared justified by the PD, there is no guarantee that the DA will never bring charges later (years or decades from now). Unless a court has actually ruled the shooting as justified (and they’re bound by it) I wouldn’t be talking about it at all.

.

IndyGunFreak
04-23-2012, 15:52
Well, that is sexist. There should be no differentiation on the penalty because she is female. Didn’t we supposedly get rid of those double standards?

LOL.. Don't shoot the messenger.

Maybe I've spent to much time in jails/prisons, but this is something I've saw all to often. The female is typically viewed as a "victim" who is under the control of the male, can't get away, etc.

That's why a lot of these violent crimes, a female accomplice ends up with charges that are much lower than the male.

Misty02
04-23-2012, 16:34
LOL.. Don't shoot the messenger.

Maybe I've spent to much time in jails/prisons, but this is something I've saw all to often. The female is typically viewed as a "victim" who is under the control of the male, can't get away, etc.

That's why a lot of these violent crimes, a female accomplice ends up with charges that are much lower than the male.

:rofl::rofl: So sorry, IndyGunFreak. I just realized that entire message went bold for some reason, not that I intentionally made it that way.

I guess you’re right, but it is still wrong. If they do the crime they should be getting the same penalty. I don’t deny it is easier for a male to physically control a female, even with similar height, weight, etc males usually do have more upper body strength. Other than that, it should be irrelevant. More so where crime is concerned.

.

steveksux
04-23-2012, 20:13
Well, that is sexist. There should be no differentiation on the penalty because she is female. Didn’t we supposedly get rid of those double standards?Yes we did, except when it comes to females... :supergrin:

Randy

Misty02
04-23-2012, 21:12
Yes we did, except when it comes to females... :supergrin:

Randy

:rofl: Absolutely no comment here! :honkie: