[News story] This Good Samaritan shot to kill

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...

Welcome Gunns.

I don't know about that "we are not supposed to" thing. Agree that we aren't policeman and we have oft heard that we need to be good witnesses. Others have said that they would not intervene - not sure if I could live comfortably with myself if I did not do something under the right circumstances and yes I am aware of the pitfalls.

I am unaware of any state statute that limits use of such force to self and loved ones.

I believe that I would rather tick of an anti or entire busloads of them than watch an innocent die. Imagine the headline: "Armed man watches murder of woman 8 months pregnant"

And yet there is still not enough information to know beyond a reasonable doubt that the attack had not ended when the chase began.

What we are engaged upon here is an endless series of "what-ifs" and "I thinks" along with a whole lot of "I hope I woulds" that do not amount to anything more than a hill of used electrons unless we figure out how to learn something useful out of all this. For me that generally turns out to be a better understanding of the relevant laws on defense of innocent third parties and the use of lethal/deadly force, with perhaps a big helping of citizen's arrest thrown in.

I'd like to invite folks to stop thinking about themselves and what they might have done if only they had been there and consider just how much help I need in understanding those things.

stay safe.

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...

You mention our constitutional right to bear arms? In the secod amendment it mentions " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." wouldn't chasing down a felon be considered protection of your state? When this most wonderful document was written, we as a society normally apprehended evil doers ourselves, so we could say he was doing exactly what the second amendment stands for. However in today's society this isn't the case, so even though he was within his constitutional rights, he should not have gave chase, unless of course their was exigent circumstances that would entitle him to give chase. However none of us know how we would feel in this situation?.?. When your assaulted, or threatened, etc. you feel very violated, and would certainly like to see justice brought to who done so, not saying shooting the man is the proper justice, buy atleast attempting to subdue him for police. When your in this situation your body is dumping adrenaline, and you become a very different person when B.A.R kicks in, its nearly impossible to think how you would under normal circumstances.

I see three separate things here:

1) Armed robber caught in the act
2) Citizens arrest powers against one caught in the act of a felony and armed
3) Armed criminal turning to confront pursuer

We don't have all the info to say if he broke a law or not, but we can still look at what has been released and at the laws to learn from the situation both in regards to the legality of the actions and if we agree with the actions and why. Someone can legally be in the right but morally wrong/irresponsible; or legally wrong but morally right and there's much that can be learned from either situation.

How ironic:

Armed robber knew the right path, but was unable to follow it

Darren Evanovich gave a video testimonial intended to deter others from a life of crime. Nine days later he was shot to death after committing a robbery.
...
...
...

Click to expand...

Video[10min] and more@ http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/132754113.html

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

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.

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

Sounds like a good conclusion to the story.

Not enough information to base a decision on,

But, they guy chased the violent robbery suspect, he was not shooting at the guy while he was running away. Big Plus IMO. The law does not say to not chase, and it doesn't say to chase a person. So I see everything being kosher so far, then the robbery suspect stops and points a gun at you, at thios point a safe retreat cannot be made so that leaves only one choice, fire to stop the agressor from killing you.

Now lets put ourselves into this mans situation.

You chase down a person who robbed and beat an elderly woman, you turn a corner, the robber is has now turned to confront you with a gun, he is standing there and he points a firearm at you, right at this point, there is no safe retreat, your only viable action when faced with a situation that presents great bodily harm or death is to fire your own weapon to stop the attack.

So, I say it was a good shoot!

lets look at this from another perspective, your in your car and see a store get robbed, you call 911 to report the robbery, and you follow the car to keep the police informed of its whereabouts and if anyone exits the car, the driver notices you are following, stops the car and points a gun at you. What do you do? I would fire upon the person who is aiming a gun at me.
Remember, the guy who killed the robber was not shooting as the robber was running away, he did not fire until his own life was in danger. If he is charged, I expect huge protests from anyone who is not a liberal douche!!

As a concerend citizen and a Certified State CHL instructor as well as a NRA instructor I would refrain form useing the word SHOOT to KILL I teach my Student use the words to stop the threat.

JBarL

JBarL said:

As a concerend citizen and a Certified State CHL instructor as well as a NRA instructor I would refrain form useing the word SHOOT to KILL I teach my Student use the words to stop the threat.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry about that. If I could I would edit the poll text. The title though is the direct copy of the article title..

hazek said:

I'm sorry about that. If I could I would edit the poll text. The tittle though is the direct copy of the article title..

Click to expand...

Then today has already been a good learning experience for you - would guess that you won't soon forget the lesson.

BTW - Spellcheck will make more than a tittle of a difference sometimes. :lol:

Grapeshot said:

Then today has already been a good learning experience for you - would guess that you won't soon forget the lesson.

Click to expand...

Nope, I didn't learn anything today, I learned that lesson 7 days ago: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...shot-to-kill&p=1634252&viewfull=1#post1634252 but you're right, I'm likely going to remember it for a while.

BTW - Spellcheck will make more than a tittle of a difference sometimes. :lol:

Click to expand...

I have no idea why it didn't warn me cause I had it on.

hazek said:

I have no idea why it didn't warn me cause I had it on.

Click to expand...

Maybe because "tittle" is a genuine word - just out of context. Was pokin' at you.

What if?

KYGlockster said:

You mention our constitutional right to bear arms? In the secod amendment it mentions " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." wouldn't chasing down a felon be considered protection of your state? When this most wonderful document was written, we as a society normally apprehended evil doers ourselves, so we could say he was doing exactly what the second amendment stands for. However in today's society this isn't the case, so even though he was within his constitutional rights, he should not have gave chase, unless of course their was exigent circumstances that would entitle him to give chase. However none of us know how we would feel in this situation?.?. When your assaulted, or threatened, etc. you feel very violated, and would certainly like to see justice brought to who done so, not saying shooting the man is the proper justice, buy atleast attempting to subdue him for police. When your in this situation your body is dumping adrenaline, and you become a very different person when B.A.R kicks in, its nearly impossible to think how you would under normal circumstances.

Click to expand...

The risk of vigilanteism is counting on others to make good decisions. i know this is not the case in this country as they often vote against thier own interests. What if someone comes out of the store and simply sees a man shoot another man and does not witness the robber pulling his gun? What if he then feels he needs to stop the in his eyes "killer" who just shot a man? This is why you should call the cops. Carrying is for SELF defense. A purse is replaceable and you are never know if what you just witnessed was the whole story. This could have been a fight of this guys current and ex girlfriend over the actual purse and no contents were in it. The risk of being wrong when firing on someone elses' behalf is not worth the risk and should not be defended.

PointofView said:

The risk of vigilanteism is counting on others to make good decisions. i know this is not the case in this country as they often vote against thier own interests. What if someone comes out of the store and simply sees a man shoot another man and does not witness the robber pulling his gun? What if he then feels he needs to stop the in his eyes "killer" who just shot a man? This is why you should call the cops. Carrying is for SELF defense. A purse is replaceable and you are never know if what you just witnessed was the whole story. This could have been a fight of this guys current and ex girlfriend over the actual purse and no contents were in it. The risk of being wrong when firing on someone elses' behalf is not worth the risk and should not be defended.

Click to expand...

Great points, one and all.

There are always two sides to every "story"; and I'd want to know both sides before pulling my handgun and firing on another human being who wasn't an immediate threat to me or my family.

Probably had a pretty good response time once the call came in....

What does it say about the mind-set of criminals, when they feel safe pistol-whipping a middle-aged woman and stealing her purse just several hundred feet across a big parking lot from the police station?!?!:cuss:

B. Reddy said:

What does it say about the mind-set of criminals, when they feel safe pistol-whipping a middle-aged woman and stealing her purse just several hundred feet across a big parking lot from the police station?!?!:cuss:

Click to expand...

Ummmm, shallow end of the gene pool?

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...

We, as honest, law-abiding citizens, have been granted authority by nearly all states to detain in many circumstances, and to conduct a citizens arrest under certain circumstances. It's not mandatory, nor is it necessarily a civic duty. It is, however, an option intended to stop criminal activity, which is the best interest of all of us.

For gunns et al.

I present to you the Peelian Principles of an ethical police force, named after Robert Peel, the founder of the modern policing.

Principles of policing

1) The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2) The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3) Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4) The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5) Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6) Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7) Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8) Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9) The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Click to expand...

Saying that a law abiding citizen should be prosecuted for intervening in a violent crime that he witnessed himself is just another way of saying that you think the police are better than us mere peasants.

okboomer said:

Ummmm, shallow end of the gene pool?

Click to expand...

I don't know, the thug would have gotten away with it if not for a citizen. After all, it wasn't a cop that stopped him. Maybe the criminal is onto something that being around a police station isn't as safe as everything thinks?

/(half) sarcasm