The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: WatchManUSA on October 22, 2011, 04:25:26 PM
-
Minneapolis Star Tribune - Updated: October 21, 2011 - 9:36 PM
For the full story: http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/132311553.html
“An apparent good Samaritan told police that he interrupted a violent armed robbery near a south Minneapolis grocery store, chased down the suspect and fatally shot him Thursday night.”
The shooting occurred about 9:45 p.m. Thursday in the 2800 block of 26th Avenue S., police said.
According to police, a caller to 911 said a woman had just been robbed at gunpoint of her purse and pistol-whipped in the parking lot of the Cub Foods. A second 911 call indicated that a man had been shot behind the nearby Super Grand Buffet.
Officers responded and found Evanovich mortally wounded. Then they were approached by another man outside the grocery store who said he witnessed the robbery, chased Evanovich behind the restaurant and shot him during a confrontation. The man then directed officers to the weapon.
Police found that weapon and another handgun believed to belong to Evanovich near where the shooting occurred.”
Point of fact, the "good Samaritan" is a valid Minnesota Carry Permit holder. No final determination has been made if the "good Samaritan" will be charged. He is not being held by police.
In Minnesota, the legal use of deadly force OUTSIDE the home for a carry permit holder requires four pillars of fact to be in place to justify the use of deadly force.
1. Reasonably in immediate fear of death or great bodily harm for yourself or another.
2. Must have reluctantly entered the conflict.
3. Must have no reasonable means of retreat.
4. No lesser force will suffice to stop the threat.
-
he didn't fallow 2 or 3.( atleast from the info we have.)
now did he do the right thing? maybe. Did he do the smart thing? nope. did he do the legal thing? based on the info in thread, nope.
emotion has nothing to do with it.
-
Sounds like his case is weak in at least 2 points #2 , if not all of them since the original crime was over and he had to chase the thief.
-
Survey says the guy is screwed uless he gets a very sympathetic DA who's willing to chalk it up to public service homicide. Once the perp ran away, the crisis was over. He should have stopped there. By chasing the guy our hero escalated things. I hate to say it, but I think that with the wrong DA it would be pretty easy to hang the guy. :-\
FQ13
-
So what this says is that a CCW holder who is armed is less able, legally, to stop a fleeing violent criminal than an unarmed citizen?
-
So what this says is that a CCW holder who is armed is less able, legally, to stop a fleeing violent criminal than an unarmed citizen?
It says you shouldn't be chasing fleeing armed robbers. If you do it without a gun you get shot. If you do it with a gun and shoot the guy, you get prosecuted.Eeither way, its your own damn fault. Lesson the first, we aren't the cops. Defense yes. Chasing down the bad guys? Not such a good idea.
FQ13
-
When I first heard the report I figured the our "good Samaritan" was in jail pending bail. If he came to the aid of the woman and the bad guy got shot then he meets the four pillars just fine. The pursuit makes it a gray issue unless he had to go that way to get home or to his vehicle the bad guy then came after him. Right now not all of the facts are public.
-
When I first heard the report I figured the our "good Samaritan" was in jail pending bail. If he came to the aid of the woman and the bad guy got shot then he meets the four pillars just fine. The pursuit makes it a gray issue unless he had to go that way to get home or to his vehicle the bad guy then came after him. Right now not all of the facts are public.
Therein lies the problem with making early judgements. IF the article is accurate, Joe Samaritan is probably screwed. "Chasing down" the perp hardly qualifies as "reluctantly" entering a conflict. On the other hand, if he were simply following the suspect to get a direction of travel or vehicle description to give to authorities (ie: trying to be a good witness), and the perp turns on and threatens him, then he could, conceivably, be covered under the "big four". Too much information is not presented here for me to make a Monday Morning Quarterback type judgment.
-
My point was that if he had not been an armed CCW holder, he could have legally pursued the perpetrator of a violent crime he had witnessed with the intent of apprehending him.
Yeah, he would be doing it at his own risk, but it would not have been a legal risk under what has been presented here.
It used to be that doing what an "Honorable Citizen" would do was not against the law.