Glock Talk banner

Man with permit to carry arrested after downtown Minneapolis shooting

8K views 82 replies 56 participants last post by  Sam___ 
#1 ·
MINNEAPOLIS (KMSP) - It's a sound many weren't expecting to hear on a warm, clear fall afternoon in the heart of downtown Minneapolis.

But what witnesses describe as two gunshots and a short "scuffle" just before 5 p.m. Wednesday broke the genial mood on the corner of 7th Street and Hennepin Avenue, leaving one man injured and another in police custody.

A man who told police he has a permit to carry, later identified as 43-year-old Kevin Martin, was walking with another woman in the area when a group of two men and a 17-year-old possibly surrounded the pair, according to police.

"It just kind of happened all of a sudden," said Courtney Bivens, who saw the entire incident unfold. "There was a little scuffle, so that caught my attention, and when I looked up I saw a guy pull out a weapon."

The first shot, Bivens said, missed Demani Griffith and caused him to run away. Martin then let off a second round as the 18-year-old was fleeing, which Bivens believes was the one that struck Griffith in the leg.

Police said he suffered a non-life threatening injury and was taken to Hennepin County Medical Center for treatment. Meanwhile, Martin was arrested on felony assault charges after being taken to City Hall for questioning.

The intersection of 7th and Hennepin, where the incident took place, represents the heart of downtown Minneapolis--just down the block from the Hennepin Avenue theaters, the First Avenue music club, Target Center and popular restaurants and rooftop bars.

http://www.fox9.com/news/conceal-carry-permit-holder-arrested-after-downtown-shooting
 
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: Old Buzzard 74
#2 ·
http://www.kare11.com/news/suspect-arrested-in-mpls-shooting-had-permit/484639494

MINNEAPOLIS - The man police say shot another man in the leg while legally carrying his firearm has been arrested.

Police say a man and woman were approached by two men and a juvenile just before 5 p.m. Wednesday outside the Pantages Theater in downtown Minneapolis. There was some type of altercation, and police say the man who was with the woman pulled out a handgun and shot a man in the group.

The victim was taken to HCMC with non-life-threatening injuries.

Police say the man who fired felt threatened, and that he did have a permit to carry. But he was arrested and, according to the Hennepin County Jail roster, faces assault with a dangerous weapon.

Police confirmed the man fired two shots.

Donald Raleigh, a certified firearms instructor in Minnesota and across the U.S., says having a permit for your weapon doesn't necessarily mean you can use it.

"One of the things we talk about in our classes if that if you use your gun defensively your life will change," he said.

Raleigh did not speak specifically about this case, but says part of his training is handling emotions of potentially deadly encounters while factoring in the law.

"Specifically there are rules in Minnesota there are certain criteria you have to meet in order to pull your weapon defensively," he said.

There are four criteria. You must be in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm, you can't be the instigator, firing your weapon is your only option, and you have a duty to retreat.

"Are you willing to go to jail or die for it?" Raleigh said. "If you're not, then you shouldn't have pulled your gun."
 
#56 ·
The first recommendation from most carry instructors is to never fire your gun unless deadly force is absolutely necessary. The assaulting creeps were running away; the threat had been removed. The carrying citizen made a mistake. Had he not shot a fleeing creep he might not be in the hoosegow now.
 
#5 ·
Well, deadly force is deadly force, and if you're going to use it you'd better be right.

Not everyone who carries a handgun may be as familiar with the laws involving the use-of-force, especially deadly force, and how those laws are enforceable, as they may believe.
 
#13 ·
Looks like the teens had no weapons on person, questionable immediate danger to life or limb, and he didn't retreat.
Where is he to retreat too on a public sidewalk with companion when there are three individuals around them?
 
#8 · (Edited)
Don't know MN law, but 3 states where I have lived authorized deadly force when confronted by 3 or more individuals, armed or not, it is reasonable for a person to fear serious bodily injury or death. Just like these states also recognized the 21' rule when confronted with a stabbing, slashing or crushing weapon. When taking my Iowa CCW class the deputy was explaining the 21' rule, he assumed a shooting position and said "If you are not sure if the 21' line has been crossed, this is the proper shooting position" while walking forward mimicking pulling the trigger and saying "BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG".

Even if the 3 or more rule applied the second shot while the scrotes were fleeing is problematic.
 
#12 ·
Don't know MN law, but 3 states where I have lived authorized deadly force when confronted by 3 or more individuals, armed or not, it is reasonable for a person to fear serious bodily injury of death. Just like these states also recognized the 21' rule when confronted with a stabbing, slashing or crushing weapon. When taking my Iowa CCW class the deputy was explaining the 21' rule, he assumed a shooting position and said "If you are not sure if the 21' line has been crossed, this is the proper shooting position" while walking forward mimicking pulling the trigger and saying "BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG".

Even if the 3 or more rule applied the second shot while the scrotes were fleeing is problematic.
Authorized or allowed? What if there were only two unarmed potential bad guys - I guess the three person rule would not apply?
 
#9 ·
If after he fired once the three fled or were fleeing the scene, is the threat now over? Did he need to shoot again, shoot at a fleeing suspect?
IMO, this is the bottom line. Fire at one (the most aggressive or front person) and they all run away - incident is over. Agree the 2nd shot is the 'money shot'. It was definitely not warranted.
 
#16 ·
I'll bet the punks started to run when they saw a weapon so no need to shoot. But that's only what I would have done. With being on a down town street (bystanders) calls for a little common sense.
 
#10 ·
I've always felt that if someone truly believes they are about to be killed if they don't shoot, they won't care about the aftermath of the shooting. They'll just be damn glad to be alive. If they are unsure they are about to die, then maybe they should give their situation a little more thought before they commence firing. If they have to think about it very long, I just don't know what to tell them.
 
#11 ·
If after he fired once the three fled or were fleeing the scene, is the threat now over? Did he need to shoot again, shoot at a fleeing suspect?
Perhaps, perhaps not. Michael Brown was fleeing from Officer Wilson and then he turned around and attacked. Hard to tell from this report if that was a possibility here and he was still in danger. There may have been a disparity of force situation here, even if the thugs were unarmed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dcc65
#25 ·
There was a disparity of force. Problem is as others have said, once they turned and ran he was not under attack and #s didn't matter any more. He shouldn't have shot the 2nd Rd. Maybe if the round hit the front of the POS's leg he has a chance, but if in the rear showing retreat, not good. JMO but as it reads, it looks bad for him.
 
#14 ·
If after he fired once the three fled or were fleeing the scene, is the threat now over? Did he need to shoot again, shoot at a fleeing suspect?
Yep. Exactly right. That is what I believe as well. If the threat is running "away" it is no longer a immediate threat.
Of course it/they could "become" a threat again, but that would have to "actually" occur & not be hypothetical..

Still, the defender should be released & awarded Keys to the City..
 
#40 ·
Yep. Exactly right. That is what I believe as well. If the threat is running "away" it is no longer a immediate threat.
Of course it/they could "become" a threat again, but that would have to "actually" occur & not be hypothetical..

Still, the defender should be released & awarded Keys to the City..
Unfortunantly he fired the gun. If it goes to trial
MINNEAPOLIS (KMSP) - It's a sound many weren't expecting to hear on a warm, clear fall afternoon in the heart of downtown Minneapolis.

But what witnesses describe as two gunshots and a short "scuffle" just before 5 p.m. Wednesday broke the genial mood on the corner of 7th Street and Hennepin Avenue, leaving one man injured and another in police custody.

A man who told police he has a permit to carry, later identified as 43-year-old Kevin Martin, was walking with another woman in the area when a group of two men and a 17-year-old possibly surrounded the pair, according to police.

"It just kind of happened all of a sudden," said Courtney Bivens, who saw the entire incident unfold. "There was a little scuffle, so that caught my attention, and when I looked up I saw a guy pull out a weapon."

The first shot, Bivens said, missed Demani Griffith and caused him to run away. Martin then let off a second round as the 18-year-old was fleeing, which Bivens believes was the one that struck Griffith in the leg.

Police said he suffered a non-life threatening injury and was taken to Hennepin County Medical Center for treatment. Meanwhile, Martin was arrested on felony assault charges after being taken to City Hall for questioning.

The intersection of 7th and Hennepin, where the incident took place, represents the heart of downtown Minneapolis--just down the block from the Hennepin Avenue theaters, the First Avenue music club, Target Center and popular restaurants and rooftop bars.

http://www.fox9.com/news/conceal-carry-permit-holder-arrested-after-downtown-shooting
 
#23 ·
Mas Ayoob has previously written about the criteria necessary to justify a non-LEO lawfully shooting at a fleeing suspect. Each of the following six criteria MUST BE present and, as usual, if there is any doubt one shouldn't shoot.

Six Criteria for Use of Deadly Force Against a Fleeing Suspect
  1. Suspect has committed a heinous felony against the person, including:
    • Murder
    • Attempted Murder
    • Arson of an Occupied Building
    • Stranger Kidnapping (i.e., not shooting at a non-custodial parent kidnapping his or her own child)
    • Violent Sexual Assault
  2. Suspect is known to you beyond all reasonable doubt as the perpetrator. (You saw the suspect commit the crime.)

  3. You are reasonably identifiable as “the good guy.”

  4. The suspect’s escape is open-ended.

  5. All other means of capture have been tried and failed or are no longer available under the circumstances.

  6. Suspect’s continued freedom presents a clear and present danger to innocent human life and limb.
I think everyone who carries or keeps a firearm for self-defense purposes would do well to commit this to memory.

Best to all.

Stay safe.
 
#28 ·
Unless you're in Texas? Not sure but threads I've read here make me think that.

Yeah, I'm guessing everything was ok for the shooter up to the point he shot at the fleeing suspect under local law. Seems the credible threat was at least debatable up to that point.
 
#36 ·
If after he fired once the three fled or were fleeing the scene, is the threat now over? Did he need to shoot again, shoot at a fleeing suspect?
Hard to say. It's probably not OK to shoot him as he is running away, but I have seen a jury accept self-defense in that case, on the theory that the guy running was trying to get some distance and draw his own gun.
 
#37 ·
This is an excellent example of the kinds of legalities that always come into play. Worth remembering as well, what the political climate is in a given city or county or locale, as they can differ. Simply defining "grievous" bodily harm or death boils down to how the "reasonable" person would view the scenario. Do people/lawyers/cops/juries and judges differ of interpretations of what "reasonable" is"? -Absolutely! Lastly, throw in an individual's ability to make correct decisions in the heat of the moment. Alot to think about.
 
#38 ·
The state wants him to take a beating and only draw his gun if life safety requires it. WOW!
The fact that the assailants were NOT armed ,really screws him....but thats for a jury to decide.
I hope he gets a jury trial, he might get some sympathy from a jury. A bench trial with a judge will not end well for him.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top