Permit holder shoots robber in Mineapolis

Status
Not open for further replies.

Frozen North

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
722
Location
Central Minnesota
Story is incomplete. In a TV interview, a cop stated a witness to the robbery gave chase, guns were drawn, shots were fired. Therefore, if during the chase the robber drew and pointed or fired at the witness, it is self defense. IMHO
 
Story is incomplete. In a TV interview, a cop stated a witness to the robbery gave chase, guns were drawn, shots were fired. Therefore, if during the chase the robber drew and pointed or fired at the witness, it is self defense. IMHO

But did the witness have to chase the robber? Probably not. :uhoh:
 
The Hennepin county will say he is a vigilante and the puke was trying to defend himself. If Mr. Permit holder was chasing the gobblin with his gun drawn, the BG could have been in fear for his life and been justified in pointing his gun at him. I am not sure if you have the right to defend yourself in the commission of a crime here in MN. I suppose Mr. Permit holder's defense could say he was attempting a citizens arrest to end an immediate threat to the public also.

It's all a slippery slope. We will just need to let the great legal minds sort it out. I guess the moral of the story is not to shoot someone if it's not worth a jail sentence. It's sad, but true.

Giving chase when you know someone is armed is a bad for your freedom....
 
I have no sympathy for those that prey on the elderly or children.

None.

May not be right, but there it is.

Regardless, this is another example of why it is so important to know your state law. Nothing chaps my hide more than seeing citizens trying to do the right thing get caught up in an act that later proves to be unlawful in the eyes of a court.
 
If the permit holder gets in trouble, feel free to ship him down to us here in Texas where he will be welcomed, given a pat on the back and told "good job".
 
The victim is 53. The media thought it would sound cooler if they called her an elderly woman. Anyway all of our choices have consequences. The permit holder has to live with the weight of killing a man and maybe more. The scumbag made a choice that cost him his life.
 
As far as I'm concerned, if you use a firearm in the commission of a crime, you should understand that you may be shot. If you use a firearm to commit a crime, logic would dictate that you plan to use it. If you plan on using a firearm on someone else, you would expect that they would use a firearm to defend them self.

If you touch a stove, you expect to get burned. If you wave a gun around in a robbery, you expect to be shot.

Bad guy took his life into his own hands and lost it. It's bad guy's fault and he got what he deserved. I think law makers over think things. If the hoodlum is attacking society with a gun, why should it matter what member of society shoots him.

No, I do not think that anyone should chase and shoot someone in the back. I do not think that I would have risked my life and freedom if the victim was no longer in danger. Purses and billfolds are not worth human lives. I will leave the running and tackling of armed criminals to the police who wear body armor. They have radios that can get them help on short notice and lawyers to get them off the hook after the fact.
 
This sounds like it is teetering on the edge of "mutual combat", where even the "stand your ground" provisions of a good castle doctrine won't protect you. I think this fellow will be very lucky if he does not end up facing charges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top