Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Connect with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Read up on the latest product reviews
  • Make new friends to go shooting with!
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

Glock Talk is the #1 site to discuss the world’s most popular pistol, chat about firearms, accessories and more.

Permit holder involved shooting-MN

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by EAJuggalo, Oct 22, 2011.

  1. EAJuggalo


    Jan 17, 2005
    Eagan, MN
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2011
  2. EAJuggalo


    Jan 17, 2005
    Eagan, MN
    I just don't know how this is going to turn out for the guy since he followed the dead guy behind the restaurant. I know the area very well, let's just say I wouldn't be going behind that strip mall that late at night by myself, armed or not.

  3. r3dot


    Sep 6, 2007
    Izzerwat TX
    Stupid decision.
  4. debbert


    Apr 20, 2011
    North Perry, OH
    While I commend him for removing a thug from society, I believe that chasing the suspect down, prior to shooting him, is going to come back to bite him in the butt.
  5. Bogey

    Bogey The Mouth® CLM

    Sep 11, 2004
    Raleigh, NC
    The story said it was completely legal for him to do this.
  6. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    What is the law there on a third party (someone other than the victim) pursuing and using lethal force?
  7. EAJuggalo


    Jan 17, 2005
    Eagan, MN
    Russ, that is the question that the Grand Jury and probably a trial jury are going to have to decide. The permit holder was within his rights to attempt a citizens' arrest but once the dead guy broke off the attack and left the scene he re-established his right to self defense. If the prosecution can get 12 people to agree that the dead guy was in "reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm" than the permit holder is going to go down. I think if we find out the permit holder had drawn before turning the corner of the building he's screwed. In order for him to come away clean the investigation is going to have to find that he drew after the dead guy raised his weapon. One other thing to throw in, this happened in Hennepin County which runs about 75-80 percent anti-gun in the first place.
  8. GoBigOrange


    May 22, 2010
    East TN
    I'm not going to chase an armed suspect over a purse snatching but I won't fault the citizen for doing so. I just hope he isn't charged. Hopefully he didn't shoot him in the back.
  9. sounds sketchy. i would have been more concerned about rendering aid to the victimized woman than chasing down some thug to recover her pursue, then take his life. i hope he doesnt get in trouble, but a court may argue that he escalated the situation by giving chase...
  10. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    Subdivision 1. When authorized. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:(1) when used by a public officer or one assisting a public officer under the public officer's direction:(a) in effecting a lawful arrest; or(b) in the execution of legal process; or(c) in enforcing an order of the court; or(d) in executing any other duty imposed upon the public officer by law; or(2) when used by a person not a public officer in arresting another in the cases and in the manner provided by law and delivering the other to an officer competent to receive the other into custody; or(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property; or(5) when used by any person to prevent the escape, or to retake following the escape, of a person lawfully held on a charge or conviction of a crime; or(6) when used by a parent, guardian, teacher, or other lawful custodian of a child or pupil, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain or correct such child or pupil; or(7) when used by a school employee or school bus driver, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain a child or pupil, or to prevent bodily harm or death to another; or(8) when used by a common carrier in expelling a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful requirement for the conduct of passengers and reasonable care is exercised with regard to the passenger's personal safety; or(9) when used to restrain a person who is mentally ill or mentally defective from self-injury or injury to another or when used by one with authority to do so to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the person's control, conduct, or treatment; or(10) when used by a public or private institution providing custody or treatment against one lawfully committed to it to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the control, conduct, or treatment of the committed person.
    Subd. 2. Deadly force used against peace officers. Deadly force may not be used against peace officers who have announced their presence and are performing official duties at a location where a person is committing a crime or an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult.​
  11. Burleigh


    Oct 11, 2011
    The MN Carry Forum has been discussing this shooting and is worth reading. Some of the folks commenting are some of the most knowledgeable people in the state on the carry law and self defense. Prosecutorial discression looms large here. Here is a link to the discussion :
  12. IndyGunFreak


    Jan 26, 2001
    "I ran after him to try and get a description of him for the police, and next thing I knew, he turned on me with the gun"

    There could be a million scenarios as to why the person fired. Guy was on probation for another violent felony, had just committed another (and who knows how many he committed and just didn't get caught)

    No sympathy from me, even if he shot the guy in the back. Only way I'd have a problem with this, if the bad guy surrendered and he more or less executed him.

  13. tonyparson


    Jan 20, 2008
    Dayton, TN.
    I dont think I would of chased the guy down, but when your adrenaline kicks in it makes you do things you might not think you would do.. If I did do this, the only words out of my mouth would of been, here's my info and I need to talk to my lawyer before I give a statement...
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2011
  14. LongGoneDays

    LongGoneDays Misanthropical

    Nov 12, 2005
    Going from what the article said it looks like a good shoot to me. Not something I would have done though.
  15. barstoolguru

    barstoolguru texas proud

    Jan 10, 2011
    dallas, tx

    He has a right to make a citizen’s arrest when he witnessed a felony and used self-defense when the BG pulled a gun.... case closed
  16. AA#5


    Nov 26, 2008
    Interesting that the article says "They (permit holders) need to evaluate the situation like police would."

    Well, police would also chase down a suspect & if necessary, shoot him.
  17. BailRecoveryAgent

    BailRecoveryAgent Rude Member

    Aug 2, 2010
    But he was just getting ready to turn his life around probably, now he'll never get the opportunity to be an upstanding model citizen.:crying:

    I agree, short of him giving up then being executed, I vote good shoot.
  18. Motor City Glocker

    Motor City Glocker Gun Addict

    Sep 28, 2011
    SE Michigan

    Very good point.
  19. IT0


    Jun 28, 2011
    What a idiot, and this is going to cost him some money too.
  20. TDC20


    Apr 11, 2011
    EAJuggalo, this isn't a personal attack on you, so please don't take it that way. What you said is 100% true, and it's most likely how the law will be applied, pending prosecutorial discretion.

    My problem is this. I seriously doubt if there had been a police presence when this crime occurred that the perp would have attempted the robbery in the first place. So he robs a 53yo woman, at gunpoint, and pistol whips her. That's a heinous crime. If the police had witnessed this crime, and had given pursuit and ended the confrontation with a fatal shooting, the same issues you posit here would also be considered, but by an internal police investigation (police investigating police). Unless there was evidence that the perp was summarily executed, no charges would be filed. That is the politics of police shootings and investigations. There have been many cases of perps being shot in the back, and no charges are filed because of the circumstances.

    So why are so many people calling this a bad or questionable shoot? The police weren't there, and someone stepped up to fill the void. He probably did something that most of us wouldn't do, but in the end, the result was a positive outcome. Now there seems to be a fairly large proportion of people who want to see him prosecuted for misconduct and possibly even murder. If there's evidence that he executed the guy, then OK, that needs to be prosecuted. But aside from that, I'd want to elect the guy as sheriff!

    The real problem is the people. If jurors would refuse to convict people who came to the aid of their fellow citizens, we wouldn't have these kinds of cases or these kinds of attitudes every time a CCW holder shot a perp during the commission of a crime (no, the crime was not over as the felon was fleeing the scene here, so don't try arguing that). If jurors would refuse to convict, then prosecutors would stop trying to crucify CCW holders by bringing criminal prosecution.

    The way I see this, if it would have been a good shoot for the police, then it was a good shoot for the CCW holder. This needs to be determined by a proper investigation of the available evidence in either case, but anything less is a (misguided) double standard.