Permit to Carry holder shoots robbery suspect

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

This happened in the city that I work tonight. Apparently the rest of the story is that the couple (one male, one female) robbed an elderly lady and then fled on foot. A good samartin saw it and attempted to stop the robbery suspects wherein shots were fired. Whether or not both parties shot is unclear. The male suspect was located dead at the scene. The good samaratin was found to have a MN Permit to Carry.


Some stories report that the female suspect and a witness where arrested and other stories say she wasn't. We'll have to see which story is true and how it pans out.



I spoke with one of my partners tonight and he said in his over 15 years he's never heard of something like that happening with a CCW'r here. I told him that a few months ago a former Marine (in like his 80's) who did not have a permit to carry was attacked by multiple males near his car in a parking lot and shot at them scaring them off. I believe he wasn't charged with a crime even though he did not have a CCW. (He shouldn't have been charged in my mind, however per the law he could have been.). Then a co-worker told him, just read the NRA magazine, you'll see dozens of these incidents a month put in there of self-defense with a gun.


Either way I hope it works out for this CCW'r if it's a good shoot. We'll have to wait and see how it turns out.




http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/132289623.html

Minneapolis police: Robbery may have led to fatal shooting

Updated: October 21, 2011 - 12:47 AM


A man was fatally shot Thursday night in south Minneapolis in what may have been a case of self-defense by another man who interrupted a robbery, police said.

When police arrived, a man with a gun who said he had a valid concealed-weapon permit told them he had interrupted the robbery of a woman in her 60s. The man said that he chased the robbers, a male and a female, exchanged fire and killed the male robber.

Police took both the alleged female robber and shooter into custody while they investigate his account of the shooting.

.

.

 

[merlinfire]

I think it was a good shoot, but the part where he chased them might get him into some trouble.

 

[Lex Luthier]

I drive by that intersection everyday, though it is not the type of area I would visit after dark.

The Star Tribune deserves some props for stating very clearly that the shooter was carrying a valid handgun permit. Hope this works out well for him and bad for the bad guys.

 

[TwoWheelFiend]

I think if more piece of <deleted> criminals who go after vunerable poeple were afraid to get chased and gunned down this country would be a better place.

 

[EmbarkChief]

^^^^^^
This

 

[osteodoc08]

Too bad the "law" doesn't see it that way. I would tend to agree though, if criminals thought there might be more consequences than 3 hots and a cot with free gym with his buddies, they'd probably think twice.

 

[heeler]

I too agree with poster #4.
One thing I have learned in my years is that these people dont want to get caught and they certainly dont want to get hurt but even when they do get caught they eventually get released and go back to their street ways of life all over again.
All that being said it wont be long until the members of the lawyers guild among this site starts straining gnats with this situation.

 

[TwoWheelFiend]

I am fortunate enough to live in VT, a virtual crime free state. Of course we have crime but it is so minimal its rediculous. I credit the fact that we have an enourmous ammount of people who carry. And you never know who has a gun wich a great detterant to crime. Ive met people here that i never would of thought in a million years would carry a sidearm. You just never know. I started carrying at the age of 18 with no permit required. ( im sure some people will freak out about that)

<3 VT!!!

 

[Sky]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20111020__Geezer__won_t_let_thugs_ruin_his_walks.html

Is a story that happened last week to a man doing his daily walk.

Maybe CCW will become more popular if the "meanness" continues.

Had a friend in a foreign county walking to her condo when two guys came by on a motorcycle and snatched her purse. There were 5 or six guys sitting outside her condo drinking ( she always thought they were not good men; losers). One of the guys saw what happened and jumped on his motorcycle and after a few blocks in terrible traffic was able to get along side the 2 guys; with a very well placed kick he made them lose control of their bike and lay it over rather dramatically. He retrieved her purse, kicked one guy in the upper torso that was trying to get up and returned her purse.

She offered him money but he would not take it.

Her comment was their countries version of, "you can not judge a book by the cover".

There is a video of a little 2 or 3 year old baby girl who was ran over in China by two trucks ( she died today) that no one would even stop to move her out of the alley because they were afraid if they helped they would have to pay for the kids medical bills or be accused of hurting the kid in the first place. Did not want to get involved for the hassle.

We have all read of stories or screams in the night where no one helps. Sad comment on what is allowed to happen some places some days. Hope the man who intervened is given a medal but unfortunately my faith is lacking; but we will see.

The little girl being ran over........ I would suggest you do not view the raw video; the trucks were moving about the speed of a normal walk; 3 or 4 miles an hour.

The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything - Albert Einstein said that I think; but regardless??

 

[heeler]

That is good to know TwoWheelFiend.
I am sure the demograhics of VT. largely contributes to low crime as well.

 

[TwoWheelFiend]

Heeler:

Without a doubt. Many factors attribute to the low crime rate here.

 

[Alex23]

The law can be famously tricky in situations like this but if it went down the way the shooter said it did, there should be no charges and a public commendation.

It should be a cast iron fact that if you commit a violent crime you may well not survive the experience. That is a very real deterrence.

 

[Dnaltrop]

the Chasing of the suspects might get him in trouble...

I'll guess his next step legally will be to explain himself in the vein of preventing further harm to others from an obviously Violence-inclined reprobate.

 

[TexasRifleman]

MN law on the subject. Seems to me the pursuit is OK if the fight was ongoing, but IANAL and all that nonsense.

Subd. 2. Circumstances when authorized. (a) The use of deadly force by an
individual is justified under this section when the act is undertaken:
(1) to resist or prevent the commission of a felony in the individual's dwelling;
(2) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is an offense or
attempted offense that imminently exposes the individual or another person to substantial
bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death; or
(3) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is the commission or
imminent commission of a forcible felony.

Subd. 3. Degree of force; retreat. An individual taking defensive action pursuant
to subdivision 2 may use all force and means, including deadly force, that the individual
honestly and in good faith believes is required to succeed in defense. The individual may
meet force with superior force when the individual's objective is defensive; the individual
is not required to retreat; and the individual may continue defensive actions against an
assailant until the danger is eliminated.

 

[Fishslayer]

The man said that he chased the robbers, a male and a female, exchanged fire and killed the male robber.

This might indicate the robbers were armed. Still... chasing them...

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

Update:


http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/132311553.html

Man says he stopped violent robbery in Mpls., fatally shot suspect


Article by: PAUL WALSH , Star Tribune

Updated: October 21, 2011 - 12:18 PM


The shooter, who told officers that he has a permit to carry a firearm, was detained by police for questioning and then released, Sgt. William Palmer late Friday morning.

"My understanding is that the [shooter] does" indeed have the proper gun permit, Palmer said. "I'm sure the investigators will check that."

Given that a death is involved, Palmer said he expects that a grand jury will review the circumstances and rule on whether a crime may have been committed.

When it comes to armed citizens intervening in unfolding crimes, the sergeant said "that's really a personal decision."

At the time citizens get their permit to carry a gun, "they are told what the limits are, what their liabilities are and what their authority is or is not.

"They need to evaluate the situation like [police] would," he added. "The permit is designed for self-defense."

.

.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

Texasrifleman: MN law on the subject. Seems to me the pursuit is OK if the fight was ongoing, but IANAL and all that nonsense.


Quote:
Subd. 2. Circumstances when authorized. (a) The use of deadly force by an
individual is justified under this section when the act is undertaken:
(1) to resist or prevent the commission of a felony in the individual's dwelling;
(2) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is an offense or
attempted offense that imminently exposes the individual or another person to substantial
bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death; or
(3) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is the commission or
imminent commission of a forcible felony.

Subd. 3. Degree of force; retreat. An individual taking defensive action pursuant
to subdivision 2 may use all force and means, including deadly force, that the individual
honestly and in good faith believes is required to succeed in defense. The individual may
meet force with superior force when the individual's objective is defensive; the individual
is not required to retreat; and the individual may continue defensive actions against an
assailant until the danger is eliminated.

.

Was that pulled from the Castle Doctrine part of MN law pertaining to homes? Because the news is saying this:



http://www.kare11.com/news/article/...gilante-justice-Man-shoots-kills-armed-robber

Self defense or vigilante justice? Man shoots, kills armed robber

11:46 PM, Oct 21, 2011

"A person has to reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger to justify this kind of force," says Marsh Halberg, a local defense attorney.

In greater detail, claiming "self-defense" will require the Good Samaritan to prove three elements; that he wasn't the aggressor, that he felt threatened, and that he was unable to retreat.

"If you have a permit to conceal and carry you can use it, but it all comes back to if it's reasonable," says Halberg. "If not, you're looking at homicide charges."

.

.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Was that pulled from the Castle Doctrine part of MN law pertaining to homes? Because the news is saying this:

Again, not being a lawyer etc etc, it is my understanding from reading online that MN passed HF 1467 which, among other things, added a "stand your ground" clause and removed the duty to retreat, even outside your own home.

It is my understanding that this law went into effect August 1, 2011.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1467.0.html&session=ls87

If that did not pass then I believe the old law was quite a bit different. I haven't put a whole lot of time into researching it.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.



Well, I hope he isn't charged. I doubt he will be. But we'll have to wait and see.
.

 

[Bobson]

When police arrived, a man with a gun who said he had a valid concealed-weapon permit told them he had interrupted the robbery of a woman in her 60s. The man said that he chased the robbers, a male and a female, exchanged fire and killed the male robber.

I get the feeling that some of you see it differently, but when I read this, I didn't exactly picture this guy running down the street shooting after the thieves.

I figured he walked up on two robbers, who were probably robbing this old woman without even having a weapon drawn. This guy sees it and shouts after them, they run, he chases them. Then one (or both) of the robbers draw a weapon for the first time, and fire at the guy. Then he draws his weapon and fires back.

There's no law against chasing a purse-snatcher to retrieve a bag for an old lady. Like I said, it could have been very different from a man running down the street shooting at someone running away from him. There isn't enough information to know for sure. Frankly, if it's the latter (eg, he was running down the street shooting, and knew the thieves had a gun), he should be charged with public endangerment at least. Pretty stupid move, could have gotten an innocent bystander killed.

 

[orionengnr]

Hope this works out well for him and bad for the bad guys.

Well, it definitely worked out badly for at least one of the BGs...

 

[floydster]

I'm from Minn, and carry daily, believe me, the bottom feeding attorneys will try to hang this guy--then get him for wrongful death.

 

[bushmaster1313]

The full facts are needed to come to a conclusion.

If the dead guy was shot in the back the ccw shooter could have a big problem.

If either of the perps was shooting at the ccw shooter it might come out okay.

 

[FadingSwordsman]

It almost sounds like the CCW'r chased the perp without knowing he was armed, then responded with DF after the perp turned and attacked, similar to what #20 said.

At least, that's what I want to hear happened. The truth could be very different. I know I would be enough enraged by seeing a pursesnatch/robbery like this to chase after someone. I wouldn't be running and shooting, and it's far from the most prudent choice, but still...

 

[mgkdrgn]

Again, not being a lawyer etc etc, it is my understanding from reading online that MN passed HF 1467 which, among other things, added a "stand your ground" clause and removed the duty to retreat, even outside your own home.

It is my understanding that this law went into effect August 1, 2011.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1467.0.html&session=ls87

If that did not pass then I believe the old law was quite a bit different. I haven't put a whole lot of time into researching it.

The problem here is the "chase" ... a "stand your ground" clause is not going to cover "mutual combat" scenarios .... which this is teetering on the edge of.