Sister had her car threatened, Bro-in-Law threatened

imported post

My sister lives in Eagan. Over the weekend, her husband woke to find a group of people (later determined to be teenagers) messing with their minivan. This is in the middle of the night, mind you. My brother-in-law does *NOT* carry nor own any guns (I'm working on that part!) confronted them, the typical "WTF YOU DOING?" to which one of the people said "I'll kill you." (exact words) The teens then ran off when my B-i-L approached closer, only to find out the kids were vandalizing the vehicle, not stealing it. The vehicle is parked in the driveway in front of the garage door.

Had this happened in Utah, the kid would more than likely be visiting the Morgue.
What would my sister and B-i-L's options have been assuming he had a handgun? Middle of the night, people around my car, more than one of them, and a verbal "I'll kill you." when confronted.

Knowing only these facts, assume about 20' distance, unknown weapons on the attackers, but none visible. What would the better option be? Warning shot, then prone them until the cops get there? Shoot to maim? To kill? They are 2 parents with 4 kids. I'm leaning towards shoot to kill, but... this stuff's scary when you think about how bad it COULD BE and then find out how bad it wasn't. How would you react in this situation?

The crappy part is apparently the DA refuses to press charges even though they now know who did it and can identify them.

Edit: Sorry, topic title should be 'car vandalized' not threatened.

imported post

Hank T's postulate applies...I presume... so how do you see if there's a weapon?

I have an 18V flashlight at my door, that I always shine on whomever I need to within 200' of my front door. It is bright enough to keep them from seeing me or where I'm at because I'm standing behind my steel front door. I can see their hands (and can notice any weapons).

Or course, in NM, we don't have a castle doctrine, but if a weapon is pointed at me, or in process, I can fire in self defense to stop the deadly threat.

I would be ticked if they DA knew who the perps were and would not prosecute. What is the DA's reason for this?

imported post

The vandalism I find out was hardened plaster all over the vehicle. It did damage the paint when it was removed, but they said insurance covers it. I don't know their official reason.

imported post

Warning shot

Click to expand...

NEVER a good idea.

imported post

In Minnesota, the legal use of deadly force OUTSIDE the home 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 oranother.

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.

The number of vandals and the verbal threat would give you pillar 1. By confronting the vandals, your B-I-L lost pillar number 2. Number3 isn't there because he choose the opposite of retreat. Number 4 wouldn't apply in this case because no force was used. Keep in mind that all actions must be "reasonable under the circumstances", and remember that a prosecutor and a jury will decide what reasonable means.

Had he been armed, and merely coming out to his vehicle to leave, and these assailants confronted HIM, he would be free to use reasonable force (draw and aim)to resist an offense. If they did not halt their advances, he could then step up to use of deadly force (actually fire). Another scenario would be if your sister had just come home, and the assailants confronted her, he would be completely clear to exit the home and come to her aid.

There is nothing illegal about confronting someone commiting a property crime outside the home, but it would be at your own peril. If you confront them, you can't say you entered the conflict with reluctance, and you choose the opposite of retreat.

If you run out of your house armed to get the drop on sombody messing with your car, and you plan to hold them at gunpoint (reasonable force) youMIGHT be clear if nothing goes sour from there. However, if he chooses to resist you with force and you have to shoot him (deadly force), you would not have the protection of having the four pillars in place for the use of deadly force.

The safest and most legally sound choice in the situation that did happen, would have been to arm up, secure any loved ones in a safe location of the home, and call the police. I hate to admit that. I don't want any help either, but it is the best possible outcome. Until we have Castle Doctrine in Minnesota, that is.