Interesting 'man with a gun' situation
Author |
Message |
BigBlue
|
Post subject: Interesting 'man with a gun' situation Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 1:10 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:55 am Posts: 151
|
Here's an issue that occurred recently in Elk River:
Man points gun at ex-roomate and officer
The article makes it out to be very cut & dried with the 'gun guy' being the deranged goofball, but this situation could very easily be the opposite of what has been reported... Perhaps the two 'roommates' were the bad folks and were the aggressors and this guy was just protecting himself?
BB
|
|
|
|
|
tman065
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 2:24 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:19 am Posts: 810 Location: Northern MN
|
Why didn't he call the cops then, when the two deranged ex roommates were calling, texting and knocking at the door?
It seems to me that the two did everything right.
That's a great shoot-don't shoot scenario for police training.
_________________ Proud, Service Oriented, Rural LEO, or "BADGED COWBOY" Certified MN Carry Permit Instructor
|
|
|
|
|
mnmike59
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 3:18 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:49 pm Posts: 105
|
After being told to drop the gun. The owner swings the gun at the chest of the officer???????
Holy wads of restraint batman. That cop must have felt for some reason the guy wasn't going to use it?
|
|
|
|
|
Macx
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 10:16 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:37 pm Posts: 1757 Location: Whittier
|
Dingus musta never heard of changing the locks.
Seems like he was intent on creating a scene where the roomates broke in and he "defended" himself. Glad there was an officer there to mitigate that.. . . . sucks that the whole thing went down though. 'nother black eye for our community, glad though that he either didn't have a permit to carry or it was ommitted (given the usual media bias even though it isn't relevant in the dingus's home, can't imagine the media passing the opportunity to paint it like it mattered). Yuk
_________________ Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a
lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become
a law unto himself; it invites anarchy .” Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438
|
|
|
|
|
kenworth007
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 7:31 pm |
|
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 3:07 pm Posts: 3
|
Didn't anyone see the part where they said his gun was only loaded with 2 rounds. 2 rounds = 2 roommates, i wonder what he was planing. im just saying that it really could have gotten ugly with out the cop being there
|
|
|
|
|
Macx
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 10:51 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:37 pm Posts: 1757 Location: Whittier
|
kenworth007 wrote: Didn't anyone see the part where they said his gun was only loaded with 2 rounds. 2 rounds = 2 roommates, i wonder what he was planing. im just saying that it really could have gotten ugly with out the cop being there Yup, I think you read that the same way I did Quote: Seems like he was intent on creating a scene where the roomates broke in and he "defended" himself. That is going to be very, very unhealthy for the Dingus come jury time. Hard to paint that any other way. I understand some folks having a thing about a round in the chamber, me personally, I have a thing about not having a round in the chamber (it makes me uncomfortable ) 'course I prefer a mag full under it. The idea of partly loading a gun. . . .
_________________ Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a
lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become
a law unto himself; it invites anarchy .” Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438
|
|
|
|
|
ree
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 9:04 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:55 pm Posts: 742 Location: Twin Cities
|
The story was certainly well painted against the owner with plenty of allegations. But...
If you are an ex-resident, presumably asked not to come back, do you really have the right to use a key that you happen to still possess to, with a LEOs assistance, enter a secured premises? Remember, that they claimed to want to get their cable box (a $20-$80 item) and return a key, which could be done easily by postal mail or some other non-confrontational manner. There is a legal process, alebeit and circuitus, expensive, and unreliable, for reclaiming property when a person fails to honor a simple request.
And so what if he didn't change his locks? Sure it'd make his home more secure. But, if he really did ask them not to return as can be inferred, it's not his fault the ex-roomates decided to force entry.
|
|
|
|
|
kenworth007
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 11:32 am |
|
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 3:07 pm Posts: 3
|
when someone gets a divorce and its a messy one its standard to have the sheriffs department there when one goes to get the stuff out.
I would still like to hear the homeowners side of things so that a fair judgment could be draw in
|
|
|
|
|
BigBlue
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 8:16 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:55 am Posts: 151
|
ree wrote: The story was certainly well painted against the owner with plenty of allegations. But...
If you are an ex-resident, presumably asked not to come back, do you really have the right to use a key that you happen to still possess to, with a LEOs assistance, enter a secured premises? Remember, that they claimed to want to get their cable box (a $20-$80 item) and return a key, which could be done easily by postal mail or some other non-confrontational manner. There is a legal process, alebeit and circuitus, expensive, and unreliable, for reclaiming property when a person fails to honor a simple request.
And so what if he didn't change his locks? Sure it'd make his home more secure. But, if he really did ask them not to return as can be inferred, it's not his fault the ex-roomates decided to force entry.
Thank you. You said it better than I was able to convey. Basically, I'm just throwing out the 'what-if' that maybe these two ex-roommates did not have a legal right to be trying to gain access. It could be interpreted as them 'breaking and entering'. The presence of the LEO doesn't make it any more or less legal than it would otherwise be. I can think of scenarios that fit with the owner being totally innocent: What if he was in the shower while all the knocking and phone calling was going on? Then he gets out, gets dressed, and suddenly hears his alarm going off. At this point he doesn't know the LEO is there but does know his previously hostile roommates (we have no facts about who the aggressor/instigator originally was) still have a key. I can see reasons why he may approach the door with the gun drawn at that point. Once he saw the officer he definitely should have lowered his weapon, but we don't know when that was. All we have are the reporter's version of the story. Would your heart be racing and adrenaline pumping in that scenario? Perhaps have a little tunnel vision going?
Now in all likelihood it is closer to how it was reported than not, but I'm just throwing out a what-if. This guy could be entirely in the right and the reporter may be in the wrong just because he got his facts from one party not both.
BB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 9 posts ] |
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|