Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Twin Cities bus incident - driver attacked
http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12033
Page 2 of 3

Author:  westhope [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

rteam2 wrote:

Quote:
Do I have a greater responsibility for the safety of others as I carry a tool that might be used to defend them?


Absolutely not! You are not a Junior G-man.

Even if it is a justifiable shooting it will cost you financially and emotionally. Then there is always a possibility of a civil trial.

Before you pull a gun, think "Is it worth a $75,000 for the legal costs?"

Take cover, retreat, call 911. That is the society we live in today.

Author:  Timothy Nelson [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:18 pm ]
Post subject: 

Draw and shoot (if required) only if the attacker moves to <i><b> YOU </i></b>

:!:

Author:  sheepdog [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

Andrew Rothman wrote:
joelr wrote:
Me, I'll think about what a nice guy he is as I'm exiting the bus and calling 911.

sheepdog wrote:
That's right. Remember the 4 pillars.

Andrew Rothman wrote:
I think there's every reason to believe that defending the bus driver would be legally permissible.

joelr wrote:
Yup. And I'd feel really, really bad about not taking advantage of that for his benefit as I was ducking behind some cover and calling 911.

I'm not arguing for or against that choice. I'm correcting the mistaken implication of sheepdog's comment.


I'm not quite sure what you mean.

The words "reluctant participant" came to mind when addressing the poster's question. Pulling a gun on somebody who is not threatening YOU DIRECTLY would not make you a reluctant participant. I guess I was leaning more towards the legal ramifications of such an act. I'm not saying that it would be wrong to help someone who is in obvious distress. Heck, shooting the a-hole might even be found to be justified by a jury, but it would certainly rack up some legal fees.

Author:  princewally [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

sheepdog wrote:
Pulling a gun on somebody who is not threatening YOU DIRECTLY would not make you a reluctant participant.


Not true. "Reluctant participant" doesn't mean you have to be dragged into the fight kicking and screaming. Defense of another means that the other can be reluctant for you. Reluctant participant is probably more accurately described as "did not provoke or escalate". And the law specifically allows lethal force to be used in defense of another.

From another thread:
kimberman wrote:
Many on this board don't understand that "reluctant participant" is not the legal test, it's writer's shorthand (which even I've been known to use). So you tend to over emphasize that element.

What you can't be is an UNLAWFUL aggressor. Other states with more developed self-defense statutes make this clear [by using terms such as "did not provoke" the fight]. So does the case law.

Asserting your minor daughter's right to free from unwelcome physical contact is perfectly OK. Ordering them to stay away from your family is OK. Those are mere words. But, the father could have physically pushed her assailant away. Lawful use of force is not legal "provocation."

We tend to forget that "non-deadly reasonable force" can be used too. Minn. Stat. 606.06 says this:
Quote:
609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
Subdivision 1. When authorized. Except [by a criminal against a cop], 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:
***
(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or ... .


The young thugs chose to respond with unlawful force. Then THEY escalated to deadly force (the multiple assailant attack on the man down).

After the multiple-assailant attack began, the father absolutely could have defended himself if he had anything with which to do so (such as a gun). A nearby permit holder, reasonably perceiving that the victim was facing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm (as 7 or 8 young thugs kicked the shit out of him) would have been authorized to use protective force, including deadly force. According to the criminal charges, the victim suffered skull fractures and possible bleeding on the brain which ARE injuries capable of causing death or GBH.

Author:  Andrew Rothman [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:19 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yep, what Wally said.

Author:  jaysong [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:24 pm ]
Post subject: 

It would be legal to offer aid IMO. If you do you are opening your self up to liability. If you don't a good person may get hurt or get dead. "All evil needs to prosper is for good men to do nothing." That being said.....


We all make choices and you could make the augment that the victim should armed himself and if he chose not to you are not responsible. IMO, there is no right or wrong answer but they should a right or wrong thing for YOU. That must be determined ahead of time as much as possible. If you decide at the time of the incident you are more likely to do the wrong thing for YOU or do nothing at all. I would bet if we ask Joel how long he had to think about what his reaction would be he didn't have to think too long. He has already been there and done that (in his mind). Do what's right for you. The way to do that IMO is to run scenarios in you mind and make a choice before the situations arise, as much as that is possible.

Author:  JimC [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:53 pm ]
Post subject: 

If i was aramed, I'd put the gun in my front pants pocket, he'd never be able to get it. Or know I had it.
If i was unarmed I'd help the driver anyway I could.

Armed or unarmed I'd help





Fyrwys wrote:
JimC wrote:
I would of helped, but without a gun. I couldn't run away.
Hopefully others would join in to and subdue the jerk
What a sad world we live in.


But what do you do with your weapon if you are armed? Or did you mean you wouldn't have used it? The problem in my mind is if you join the fight without the intention of using your weapon, it certainly could escalate to the point where you have to. And while possibly legally permissible as mentioned earlier, it will still cost you. I agree that it is a sad world, that it would be so costly to those who try to help out. But it is what it is, and one may feel that the moral obligation to his family, which may be compromised by the resulting costs, outweighs the moral obligation to the stranger in need. Yes, sad. But true.

Author:  sheepdog [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

princewally wrote:
sheepdog wrote:
Pulling a gun on somebody who is not threatening YOU DIRECTLY would not make you a reluctant participant.


Not true. "Reluctant participant" doesn't mean you have to be dragged into the fight kicking and screaming. Defense of another means that the other can be reluctant for you. Reluctant participant is probably more accurately described as "did not provoke or escalate". And the law specifically allows lethal force to be used in defense of another.

From another thread:
kimberman wrote:
Many on this board don't understand that "reluctant participant" is not the legal test, it's writer's shorthand (which even I've been known to use). So you tend to over emphasize that element.

What you can't be is an UNLAWFUL aggressor. Other states with more developed self-defense statutes make this clear [by using terms such as "did not provoke" the fight]. So does the case law.

Asserting your minor daughter's right to free from unwelcome physical contact is perfectly OK. Ordering them to stay away from your family is OK. Those are mere words. But, the father could have physically pushed her assailant away. Lawful use of force is not legal "provocation."

We tend to forget that "non-deadly reasonable force" can be used too. Minn. Stat. 606.06 says this:
Quote:
609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
Subdivision 1. When authorized. Except [by a criminal against a cop], 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:
***
(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or ... .


The young thugs chose to respond with unlawful force. Then THEY escalated to deadly force (the multiple assailant attack on the man down).

After the multiple-assailant attack began, the father absolutely could have defended himself if he had anything with which to do so (such as a gun). A nearby permit holder, reasonably perceiving that the victim was facing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm (as 7 or 8 young thugs kicked the shit out of him) would have been authorized to use protective force, including deadly force. According to the criminal charges, the victim suffered skull fractures and possible bleeding on the brain which ARE injuries capable of causing death or GBH.


Consider me enlightened! :lol:

(and maybe a bit :oops: )

Author:  KonaSeven [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

JimC wrote:
If i was aramed, I'd put the gun in my front pants pocket, he'd never be able to get it. Or know I had it.
If i was unarmed I'd help the driver anyway I could.

Armed or unarmed I'd help




I understand, get away and call for help. I also understand trying to help in whatever way one can. I don't quite understand placing your weapon in an inaccessible position before helping.
Don't get me wrong I think pocket carry is an excellent carry method, I use it more than any other method. The ability to place your hand on the grip and still look like a casual passerby is very valuable. But once you commit to the fight and things go close quarters, it is too late to draw. Especially from a front pocket. Why intentionally dis-advantage yourself if you've made the decision to get involved?

Author:  princewally [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

sheepdog wrote:

(and maybe a bit :oops: )


Don't be. It's an easily misunderstood concept. The shorthand version lends it self to misunderstanding easily. It's also explained poorly, most of the time.

Author:  Dee [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

rteam2,

For everyone who is new to permitted carrying, I would recommend getting Joel's book. It will resolve a lot of questions that you might have. It was offered to me when I took my carry class and I'm damnded glad that I spent the money to buy it. If I hadn't been told about it during my carry class, I wouldn't have known that it existed.

The book is:
"Everything You Need To Know About (Legally) Carrying a Handgun in Minnesota" by Joel Rosenberg.

Author:  Pat Cannon [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

Dee wrote:
rteam2,

For everyone who is new to permitted carrying, I would recommend getting Joel's book. It will resolve a lot of questions that you might have. It was offered to me when I took my carry class and I'm damnded glad that I spent the money to buy it. If I hadn't been told about it during my carry class, I wouldn't have known that it existed.

The book is:
"Everything You Need To Know About (Legally) Carrying a Handgun in Minnesota" by Joel Rosenberg.

I second that. Which reminds me, I was at the Circle Pines, aka North location of Joel's least favorite gun store a few weeks back, helping out a friend with his first handgun purchase. They had the 'other book' on sale and, since I think it's not a bad book, I encouraged my friend to buy a copy. I also lent him my copy of Joel's book. Upon seeing it, the counter guy said, "That is an excellent book." He also said that it had been recommended to him (by his permit instructor, I think) to re-read Joel's book regularly.

Author:  JimC [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'm saying I'd place the gun in my pocket if I knew the guy didn't have a gun, knife whatever. and I was worried about getting involved and legal issues using a gun.

Right or wrong, there's no way I could let a innocent guy get beaten while I ran away or stood bye. That's just me

If i wasn't armed, I'd still help him.




KonaSeven wrote:
JimC wrote:
If i was aramed, I'd put the gun in my front pants pocket, he'd never be able to get it. Or know I had it.
If i was unarmed I'd help the driver anyway I could.

Armed or unarmed I'd help




I understand, get away and call for help. I also understand trying to help in whatever way one can. I don't quite understand placing your weapon in an inaccessible position before helping.
Don't get me wrong I think pocket carry is an excellent carry method, I use it more than any other method. The ability to place your hand on the grip and still look like a casual passerby is very valuable. But once you commit to the fight and things go close quarters, it is too late to draw. Especially from a front pocket. Why intentionally dis-advantage yourself if you've made the decision to get involved?

Author:  rtk [ Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:58 am ]
Post subject: 

Do not ride on the bus to start with. Following Farnams advice, stay away from places where there is a good chance of trouble. I know that many people use the bus for their sole form of transportation and I can respect that .
FWIW, YMMV.

RTK

Author:  Big and Tasty [ Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:33 pm ]
Post subject: 

I believe that I have a greater moral obligation to provide for and nuture my family. Therefore, I too, would be doing what Joel originally stated - making for the exit and calling 911.

Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/