Defensive shooting in MN

[Series 70]

Just watching the local 10pm news -

Three armed men entered the office of a local temp agency in an apparent robbery attempt. The worker on duty was shot in the elbow and returned fire. Police arrested the three robbers.

No mention was made of the office worker having a permit or not. I tried to find info on the local print and broadcast media websites, but there is nothing yet. The story I saw was on Channel 5 (KSTP).

If the guy has a permit, this could be the first clear-cut case of a permit holder saving his own life. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

In Minnesota, it is not necessary to have a carry permit to be armed in your place of business. Therefore, the permit status of the shooter is mostly irrelevant.

In a general way, though, each reported "good" defensive shoot helps the cause.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

Aha. Here it is, hot off the...um...Internet.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4238755.html

Worker shot in elbow during robbery in St. Paul

Published November 29, 2003

A worker at an employment agency was shot in the elbow when four males tried to rob him Friday in St. Paul, but he told police that he managed to chase them away by firing two shots at them.

Police later stopped a car on Rice Street about a mile away and arrested two men and two teenage boys. Two handguns were found in the car, said police spokesman Paul Schnell.

The incident began at 10 a.m. at Pao Staffing Inc., 763 N. Milton Av., when four males walked into the business and threatened the employee with a gun. Schnell said the 23-year-old man, who was working alone, ran into a back office. He was shot in the elbow as he ran.

The worker got his own gun and fired at least twice at the men, who were not injured.

The suspects, ages 20, 18, 16 and 15, are from St. Paul.

Herón Márquez Estrada

Good for the employee. And it sounds like it was an entirely good shoot, although I don't advocate waiting to get shot first purely on legal grounds.

 

[Standing Wolf]

<sarcasm> See? The minute a state passes a shall issue law, the streets run with blood. </sarcasm>

 

[dandean316]

In Minnesota, it is not necessary to have a carry permit to be armed in your place of business.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you on this, but from what a lawyer friend told me, the "intent" of the law concerning the place of business was the business owner.

For example, if I work at a large corporation and they do not have a policy concerning weapons, and I have a gun at work, am I really covered? Also, before the reform of the new law, security guards needed and were granted permits so they could be security guards. If the intent was really the "place of business" then secuirty guards should have never needed to get permits.

Therefore, the permit status of the shooter is mostly irrelevant.

Maybe, but remember the guy who took some shots at his brother on his own property and got his permit revoked? Remember the field day the liberals had with that? The permit was irrevelant also. Well, let's take this one!