[News story] This Good Samaritan shot to kill

http://www.twincities.com/ci_19168598?source=most_viewed Posted: October 21, 2011 - 8:48pm By Steve Fry THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

Police called him a "Good Samaritan," but Minneapolis detectives were still investigating Friday the case of a man who shot and killed an armed robber he chased down the night before.

The man who fired the fatal shot had a permit for his handgun and told police he used the weapon after the fleeing robber turned and confronted him behind a restaurant.

Police spokesman Sgt. William Palmer said the department was leaning toward classifying the shooting as self-defense.

"However, decisions on charging are left up to the county attorney's office. And since there's a death, it might even be taken to a grand jury," he said.

Click to expand...

EDIT:

No charges against man who confronted, shot robbery suspect in Minneapolis

MINNEAPOLIS — A man who confronted and fatally shot a suspected robber won't be charged in the killing because he acted in self-defense after a gun was pointed at him, prosecutors said Friday.

Instead, prosecutors filed felony charges against the dead man's sister, alleging she participated in two earlier robberies in the same neighborhood and was with her brother the night he was shot.

Octavia Shonte Marberry, 20, of Minneapolis, was charged with two counts of aggravated first-degree robbery. Her brother, Darren Evanovich, was shot and killed Oct. 20 after police said he fled the scene of a robbery in a Cub Foods parking lot.

The man who shot Evanovich wasn't identified.
...
...
The complaint said the unidentified man followed them in his car and asked for the robbery victim's purse back. Evanovich pointed a gun at the man, who pulled out his own handgun and fired.
...
...
...

Click to expand...

More@ http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/737690d3dcdf470f85bc0fde2bbfd54a/MN--Vigilante-Shooting/

also:
'Good Samaritan' Who Shot Mpls Robber Won't Be Charged
http://kstp.com/news/stories/s2349047.shtml

Shooting victim's sister charged with robbery
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_19216606

Hmmm although I have been lurking around I just registered to post this news article but now that I think about it I think I might have chosen the wrong section of the forum. If so, could a mod move this thread to where it's appropriate? Thanks! And sorry

Instead of worrying about if your post is in the "right" section, how anout worrying if there is enough information to even begin to decide if there was a "good" shoot or not?

Nit trying to bust your chops. My gripe is more with the news system that feeds just enough to sensationalize an event than with asking folks to try to decide based on almost no real information. It's almost as bad as being asked to sit on a jury and reach a decision.

stay safe.

I intentionally left out the rest of the article because I usually like to respect the original author's work by forcing you to click their link to get the whole story.. I hope that's not too unreasonable.

Does the State's laws require one to retreat if possible? Otherwise wouldn't deadly force be considered permissible in the apprehension of a suspected armed felon?

hazek said:

I intentionally left out the rest of the article because I usually like to respect the original author's work by forcing you to click their link to get the whole story.. I hope that's not too unreasonable.

Click to expand...

Not is unreasonable at all. In fact Fair Use excerpts and links are required to conform with OCDO rules.

(11) RESPECT COPYRIGHT HOLDERS: We often share news stories with one another. Please remember that these stories are copyrighted material and only post a fair-use excerpt along with a link where the rest of the story may be read.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

I put unsure because I do not trust news reports to tell the whole story, not because of what the GS did.

My understanding of OUR (WA) law is, if the BG continues to be a deadly threat to society in general, (this is the unsure part), then yes, you can chase the BG down, apprehend, and if necessary, shoot him.

The threat to your person has stopped, but is this BG still a felony or deadly threat to society in general??? that is the question they need to answer. There was not enough information provided to make that call.

Edited to add: example of what I am taking about:

A while back in Seattle there was a headline: "Burgler shot while running away".

Well, in WA it is justifiable to shoot a burgler in your house, but generally not so when the threat has left your house and is running away.

So what was the real story? The burgler was confronted by an armed homeowner and ran. Just outside this house there was a man in a car that had parked so he could talk on his cell phone. This burgler trys to carjack this guy at knife point. The man in the car shot the burgler, come carjacker, and held him for police, the homeowner did not. Lots of difference. Absolutely a good shot by the car owner.

Would it have been OK for the homeowner also? Probably, the burgler showed he was still a threat to society at large, but it would have been questioned, whereas the car owner was never in any danger of being charged. Even the newspaper thought it was a "good shot".

hazek said:

I intentionally left out the rest of the article because I usually like to respect the original author's work by forcing you to click their link to get the whole story.. I hope that's not too unreasonable.

Click to expand...

Not unreasonable at all. That's the way it's supposed to be done. Reprinting the entire article is a violation of copyright law and is prohibited on this and most forums. If people don't want to follow a link for some reason, oh well. That's their problem.

As for the article, I'd want to know precisely why he felt it was necessary to chase him down. On the face of it, it doesn't seem reasonable, but as others have pointed out, the article provides insufficient information.

Clarifying, if such be needed - my comment on the lack of information was not directed at the OP, as they appropriately provided a link for me to follow to get the complete article, which I did. There just was not enough information to decide if there was justification for taking the shot.

As has been pointed out, by giving chase the "Good Samaritan" may have actually become the aggressor in the eyes of the law. The newspapers are never going to provide enough information to determine if that was or was not the case. There are many other questions about how the shooter handled the incident that get raised if one goes looking for additional reports of the incident. I mention this just to reinforce that we almost never get enough information to make an informed decision - at best we can say "It sounds like a BG got what I think they deserve via street justice as opposed to courtroom justice." I do not believe that is necessarily a bad thing. Some folks behave in a way that requires they suffer the consequences of their choice of behavior immediately. I also believe that many times that outcome is fairer to both the BG and to society.

But I'm going to stop worrying about the newspaper's reporting and the question of was this a "good shoot" or not. I'm going to ask the OP to explain why he supports shooting to kill, as opposed to shooting to stop the threat? Based on the headline he chose for his post it seems that is in fact the case.

stay safe.

Not at all. If you clicked the article, you'd see, it has the same title as my thread. But I do regret not being more sensible in wording the poll question and choices and would change them if I could.

Personally I would shoot to stop but hope it kills. Naturally I'm assuming that it was a "good" shot. If the person dies then there is one less criminal on the street or leeching off the system in prison.

hazek said:

I intentionally left out the rest of the article because I usually like to respect the original author's work by forcing you to click their link to get the whole story.. I hope that's not too unreasonable.

Click to expand...

Nope, seems reasonable enough to me.

My opinion is that the actions of the shooter smacks of vigilantism.

I think there is more to the story, unfortunately, the media won't provide the details. I reserve judgement.

Also, I'm curious about this instructor; he has a tone of the Brady bunch; meaning, because he is an isntructor, his expertise is unquestionable; therefore, making his statements of concern leaves the impression the shooting was unjust or at least thats what I think the writer wants us to believe. He is being quoted as to have complete knowledge of the courts and the levels to which they make decisions. Looks like a hit job on carrying. JMHO.

Clearly not and I will tell you why

Mn law requires you to retreat and only fire if you or someone near you is under threat. The bad guy ran around a corner before the other pursued him, so clearly the threat was over but the guy chased him. This gives us all a bad image, like we want to chase down bad guys and get a kill. That is not why I carry.

gunns said:

Mn law requires you to retreat and only fire if you or someone near you is under threat. The bad guy ran around a corner before the other pursued him, so clearly the threat was over but the guy chased him. This gives us all a bad image, like we want to chase down bad guys and get a kill. That is not why I carry.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum, gunns!

I agree, this incident gives us all a bad image.

Sister of Man Shot Outside Minneapolis Cub Foods Arrested

Read more: Sister of Man Shot Outside Minneapolis Cub Foods Arrested http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/...Cub-Robber-Arrested-oct-26-2011#ixzz1bzspT5ZB

Sister of slain man arrested by Minneapolis police

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/132664278.html

Case of slain robber soon with Hennepin County Attorney

We could learn in days if a man who shot a robber will face criminal charges.
Minneapolis police investigators are close to finishing their investigation of Thursday's shooting death of Darren Evanovich, 23, of Minneapolis,

Click to expand...

http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/132487488.html

Sisters Say Man Who Shot Their Brother Should Have Called Police Instead [with video of the sister]

http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2342768.shtml?cat=1

gunns said:

Mn law requires you to retreat and only fire if you or someone near you is under threat. The bad guy ran around a corner before the other pursued him, so clearly the threat was over but the guy chased him. This gives us all a bad image, like we want to chase down bad guys and get a kill. That is not why I carry.

Click to expand...

What is the law on citizens arrest in the state. Attempting to subdue a criminal might not be illegal and that could justify him chasing after someone (especially if the criminal was committing a felony). Once the person turned hostile to being apprehended (as opposed to simply fleeing) you have a different situation.

Personally I'm torn on the subject of citizens trying to apprehend criminals. On one side I disagree with it because of the danger involved and what not. On the other we carry for self defense so why should we have to rely on cops for apprehending criminals if one witnesses a crime and feels that they are capable of doing so?

Aknazer said:

What is the law on citizens arrest in the state. Attempting to subdue a criminal might not be illegal and that could justify him chasing after someone (especially if the criminal was committing a felony). Once the person turned hostile to being apprehended (as opposed to simply fleeing) you have a different situation.

Personally I'm torn on the subject of citizens trying to apprehend criminals. On one side I disagree with it because of the danger involved and what not. On the other we carry for self defense so why should we have to rely on cops for apprehending criminals if one witnesses a crime and feels that they are capable of doing so?

Click to expand...

We, as gun carrying, permit holders are not suppose to apprehend criminals. We are to defend ourselves and ours against bodily harmed under only the most strict guidelines. To do anything else will make the Anti's notice and give them more ammo (pun intended) to use against our Constitutional right to bear arms.

This is an interesting case indeed. Lots to learn from.

IMO on one hand you have a thug with a gun, who points a gun at and pistol whips his victim and shows high disregard for the well-being of others and on the other hand his decision to chase him down ended in a gunfight that could have gotten him killed or killed others. But what if he had a knife instead, and instead of pistol whipping her, he had stabbed her and no one gave chase and he went on a spree stabbing a few more people before he is finally stopped by LEOs?

I mean if he only robbed the lady without hurting her maybe that shouldn't have been enough of a reason to try and stop him but when he shows he is capable of far more damage than just a robbery giving chase might just be the best thing to do and if he resists using deadly force.

I don't know, I'm still unsure what the right thing to do is but I'm leaning a lot closer to justified than not.

gunns said:

We, as gun carrying, permit holders are not suppose to apprehend criminals. We are to defend ourselves and ours against bodily harmed under only the most strict guidelines. To do anything else will make the Anti's notice and give them more ammo (pun intended) to use against our Constitutional right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

IMO this isn't as black and white as you are trying to paint.. What about Joe Zamudio, who was armed inside a store when he heard shots fired outside when Jared Lee Loughner killed all those people while trying to kill Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in AZ? Was he suppose to do nothing?