Permit to Carry holder shoots robbery suspect

Status
Not open for further replies.
The surest way to lose CCW privileges is for yahoos to start running around shooting common thieves.

OK - The thief ran away. Call the police, and let them take care of the rest.



Doubt this will happen.




Also, if he was attempting to make a Citizen's Arrest charges may not be filed against him. They also just arrested the sister as the other suspect in the robbery and charged her with aiding and abetting which shows in IMHO which way the County Attorneys office is headed with this.

.
 
Posted by WinThePennant: The surest way to lose CCW privileges is for yahoos to start running around shooting common thieves.

OK - The thief ran away. Call the police, and let them take care of the rest.

The use of deadly force against thieves was not permitted under the English Common Law in the earliest days, some eight or so centuries ago, nor was it lawful in the forty nine states and all the territories that based their laws on the Common Law. The single exception today involves Texas, in which it is lawful to employ deadly force against a thief immediately after a theft has occurred during the night time, if and only if there is no other safe way for the actor to prevent the taking of tangible, moveable property.

However, the decedent in the case in hand evidently committed robbery, rather than theft. Robbery is considered a forcible felony, because it puts the person who is robbed in imminent danger of serious harm.

In many jurisdictions, the use of deadly force to prevent a forcible felony is lawful.

However, in the case at hand, it appears that the shooting took place after the robbery had already occurred. No private citizen may decide guilt or innocence, regardless of his or her personal knowledge about a crime, except when deliberating in concert with others as a juror; a private citizen may not decide upon the penalty for a crime; and no private citizen is empowered to impose a penalty for a crime. And except in Texas under certain limited circumstances, deadly force may not be used to recover stolen property.

It would not be wise at all to conclude exactly what transpired from news reports. Nor can anyone reliably predict how a jury would decide the facts, should the actor be brought to trial.

One can, as a general rule, say that to pursue either a thief or a robber is both physically unsafe and legally very risky at best. Based on what has been reported, which again is subject to question, it would appear that the shooter in the case at hand faces a most uncertain future.

Those who opine publicly in a discoverable medium that the robber got what he deserved and so forth do us all a disservice in helping to solidify public opinion against the right to carry firearms. They do themselves a disservice by creating evidence that could someday be used against them, should they ever be involved in a use of deadly force incident in which the totality of the evidence does not seem to substantiate a claim that the use of force had been immediately necessary and lawfully justified.
 
The use of deadly force against thieves was not permitted under the English Common Law in the earliest days, some eight or so centuries ago, nor was it lawful in the forty nine states and all the territories that based their laws on the Common Law. The single exception today involves Texas, in which it is lawful to employ deadly force against a thief immediately after a theft has occurred during the night time, if and only if there is no other safe way for the actor to prevent the taking of tangible, moveable property.

However, the decedent in the case in hand evidently committed robbery, rather than theft. Robbery is considered a forcible felony, because it puts the person who is robbed in imminent danger of serious harm.

In many jurisdictions, the use of deadly force to prevent a forcible felony is lawful.

However, in the case at hand, it appears that the shooting took place after the robbery had already occurred. No private citizen may decide guilt or innocence, regardless of his or her personal knowledge about a crime, except when deliberating in concert with others as a juror; a private citizen may not decide upon the penalty for a crime; and no private citizen is empowered to impose a penalty for a crime. And except in Texas under certain limited circumstances, deadly force may not be used to recover stolen property.

It would not be wise at all to conclude exactly what transpired from news reports. Nor can anyone reliably predict how a jury would decide the facts, should the actor be brought to trial.

One can, as a general rule, say that to pursue either a thief or a robber is both physically unsafe and legally very risky at best. Based on what has been reported, which again is subject to question, it would appear that the shooter in the case at hand faces a most uncertain future.

Those who opine publicly in a discoverable medium that the robber got what he deserved and so forth do us all a disservice in helping to solidify public opinion against the right to carry firearms. They do themselves a disservice by creating evidence that could someday be used against them, should they ever be involved in a use of deadly force incident in which the totality of the evidence does not seem to substantiate a claim that the use of force had been immediately necessary and lawfully justified.
I agree 100%.
 
However stupid it is to chase them.

If he was doing it for any reason besides trying to catch or stop them. IE to get a better description or whatever.

Then the perp turns and draws or fires on him, would he then be able to defend himself?

Or would he still be in trouble even though he had no intent to stop them or cause any harm to them?
 
.


UPDATE:



http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/conceal-carry-mugging-shooting-no-charges-oct-28-2011




No Charges in Minneapolis Mugging Suspect Shooting

Witness shot and killed suspect in parking lot

Updated: Friday, 28 Oct 2011, 2:50 PM CDT


MINNEAPOLIS - Charges will not be filed against a man with a conceal-and-carry permit who shot and killed a mugging suspect in a Minneapolis parking lot.

Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman says the man, who will not be identified, acted in self-defense in the Oct. 20 shooting.

Freeman said the suspect pulled a gun on the man, who acted in self-defense when he shot and killed Darren Evanovich outside the Super Grand Buffet on 26th Street. Moments earlier, Evanovich had pistol-whipped and robbed an elderly woman of her purse in the Cub Foods parking lot.



.
 
This is a case where the DA knows that a jury will not convict a man who killed a person who pistol-whips old ladies.

I still think it's bad news to chase after an alleged assailant. This one could have gone either way.
 
I've been a lifelong resident (save two years) of Minnesota, and for the last 36 years I've lived in Hennepin County--e.g., the county in which Minneapolis is located, and which generally has had a DFL (Democrat Party) leadership since just post WWII. The County Attorney overseeing this investigation was Mike Freeman. He is a Democrat, of course, but he has also been generally considered to be a fair County Attorney. That he did not take this to a grand jury--which would be the minimum popular thing to do, to flatter his city-based 'progressive' antigun constituency--speaks volumes to the overwhelming evidence of a genuine self-defense shooting on the part of the good guy.

With that in mind, I do want to call attention to the fact that this thread has had its own share of opinionated, speculative posting, and some of it not at all conducive to keeping an open mind. Although I did not post an opinion, I was certain that this poor guy would be charged with something, for heaven's sake--and he has not.

So, let's rack this result up as a real win for good guys--and not a win because he was lucky, or because of bias, prejudice, or whatever--but a win because, in the most liberal city in Minnesota (or is it Duluth?--no; Duluth is union Democrat, not liberal), the legal procedure worked.

With this information about the charges now in, perhaps a moderator will now consider closing this thread.

Jim H.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top