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

Yet another one more reason>
http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=9403		 Page 4 of 5
Author:  SultanOfBrunei [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:52 am ]
Post subject: 
kimberman wrote:
gaygoalie wrote:
If he was a permit holder and they denied him his right to protect himself, could he sue the park? They knew there was a risk (they have security guards) but they weren't able to help him..

He should. Their guards were absent. They failed to provide the protection they UNDERTOOK to provide by affirmatively acting to force him to rely on their implied promise.

I am going to go ahead and disagree, if I may. Valleyfair did not "force" him to do anything. The victim willingly left himself without defense when he entered their property under their rules.
Author:  Duane J [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:15 am ]
Post subject: 
under MN 604A.01 (good Samaritan law), you are exempt if you feel you would be exposed to "danger or peril to self or others". this though i don't feel would prevent me from intervening. sure there may be risk attached to helping, more so with a threat of deadly force, but life as a whole is far more precious than money.

i have a permit, and i carry, to keep myself and my loved ones safe. the lives of others are no less valuable than mine. if i am willing to spend the money on legal representation in the event i defend myself, i am just as willing to spend it the event i defend another person. to think otherwise is to say that their life is less valuable.

the term "life" is what should protrude when you look within yourself and think of what you would have done in this situation. is the life of another worth less than yours or your daughters? my answer to this question is NO.

if i were the father, and i were carrying, there is no doubt i would have presented a lethal threat to these individuals when they arrived with the intent to use enough force to cause great bodily harm. with loud and commanding verbal commands, and the visible threat of deadly force, the probability of continued aggression is pretty small.

if i were a passerby, i would have immediately intervened with ANY and ALL force options available to me. if carrying, the threat of deadly force would have been immediately presented. if not carrying, any nearby objects able to be procured and used as a weapon are open, although the foresight for that is not likely. i don't have the ability to stand by and watch something like this happen. nobody, under any circumstances should be subject to this sort of brutality. if i expose myself to harm aiding another, so be it. maybe, just maybe the level of injury to this man would have been mitigated by someone intervening until law enforcement arrived. hard to tell. in any case, standing by and watching someone get beaten while having no chance is something i can't do, will not do, and i will accept any injury or legal liability for it.

a good question for this thread might be: if you were this man, what would you hope passersby would do to help you? would you forgive them for not helping you in every way possible? would you not pray someone would sacrifice their own safety while your vision fills with blood and consciousness begins to fade?

a lot of good points and varying opinions are shared on these forums when incidents like this happen. i think everyone here is a better person for exploring their own thoughts and sharing them with others. this forum, and similar ones are an asset to the carry community and threads like this are worth far more than their weight in gold.

thanks all for sharing your thoughts and feelings.
Author:  havegunjoe [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:28 am ]
Post subject: 
http://www.startribune.com/local/south/ ... Homepage:6

Why do the police always feel they need to tell us things like, “serious felony assaults are unusual at the amusement park”? So what? They may be unusual but they still can happen almost anywhere. The point is even with security you need to take responsibility for your own safety. 22 security guards and this attack still happened. I’m sure the victim feels better knowing he is a low number on the statistic chart.
Author:  Blackriv73 [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:33 am ]
Post subject: 
mnglocker wrote:
Scott Hughes wrote:
The whole thing is yet another reason for Castle Doctrine :!:



We have a Castle Doctrine, what we need is a "Stand Your Ground Law" removing the duty to retreat, and damnit, we were close this spring! We need to get our collective asses together and get our friends and family to call, write and show up at the capitol about this, and bring up this attack, hell use it to our advantage since it's in the media lime light.


Can someone point me to the thread discussing MN getting a Castle Doctrine? From what I understood, a true Castle Doctrine would allow defense of property using deadly force. I.E. if someone breaks into your home you can fire away. Forgive my ignorance, but did I miss this law being passed in MN?
Author:  plblark [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:55 am ]
Post subject: 
It depends on wether you're interested in functional law or the catch phrases associated with them.

Castle Doctrine seems to be a polarizing phrase and draws a lot of opposition. from the other side.

Mn already has a long history of Defense of Domicile law. Adding "Stand your ground" language while expanding the definition of Domicile to include your property grounds and outbuildings as well as the actual house would be an incredible start. The Stand your ground tie-in is to make it legal to defned yourself without the necessity to retreat anywhere you are legally allowed to be. That would tie in nicely with an expanded definition of Defense of Domicile and together would be hoped to shield you from prosecution if you were forced to use deadly force.
Author:  kecker [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:19 am ]
Post subject: 
Was talking with someone at work about this, and he said that actually several bystanders DID step in to try to help the guy but they were beat up too. Obviously not as serious but they weren't able to help the guy.

Not sure where he heard that, or if anyone else has heard that.
Author:  Traveler [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
In the Strib this morning (7/16/08) it was reported that one of the Evans "cousins" did punch another person on his way to the parking lot after the main assault, which earned him another MISDEMEANOR assault charge.

I am tremendously interested in where the six found the thousands of dollars to make bail. Someone must have an appreciable line of credit somewhere.
Author:  Duane J [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
Traveler wrote:
I am tremendously interested in where the six found the thousands of dollars to make bail. Someone must have an appreciable line of credit somewhere.


Do we know how much the bail was?? And if so, is the amount consitant with a crime of this brutality??

D
Author:  Lady Glock [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
Duane J wrote:
Traveler wrote:
I am tremendously interested in where the six found the thousands of dollars to make bail. Someone must have an appreciable line of credit somewhere.


Do we know how much the bail was?? And if so, is the amount consitant with a crime of this brutality??

D
Bail was set at $40,000 - $60,000 per defendant
Author:  Macx [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
Image

Credit
Author:  kimberman [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
Lady Glock wrote:
Bail was set at $40,000 - $60,000 per defendant


That's way too low. PC "racism" at work.

If the victim had successfully defended himself and not been released OR, his bail for assault 2d would have been 10 times this.
Author:  gaygoalie [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
SultanOfBrunei wrote:
I am going to go ahead and disagree, if I may. Valleyfair did not "force" him to do anything. The victim willingly left himself without defense when he entered their property under their rules.

They posted, and, being a good citizen, the victim was unarmed to comply with the property owners wishes. based on this, the victim should be able to assume that security provided by the property owner is enough that he doesn't need to carry his own defense weapon.

Granted, he could've decided against going to valleyfair, but they are, basically, a monopoly on amusement parks, so you don't have as much of an option to tell them with your money as you do, say, a grocery store.
Author:  SultanOfBrunei [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
gaygoalie wrote:
Granted, he could've decided against going to valleyfair, but they are, basically, a monopoly on amusement parks, so you don't have as much of an option to tell them with your money as you do, say, a grocery store.

I won't begrudge anyone's right to prevent any sort of activity on their own private property. If there was strong enough opposition to it then they would change their rules or someone else would open up an amusement park.

Apparently too many of our 56k permit holders disarm or disobey signs. Or 56,000 wallets aren't enough to convince some businesses.
Author:  Lenny7 [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
gaygoalie wrote:
Granted, he could've decided against going to valleyfair, but they are, basically, a monopoly on amusement parks, so you don't have as much of an option to tell them with your money as you do, say, a grocery store.


Perhaps a monopoly on amusement rides, but not on family entertainment.

This whole story led to a great discussion with my daughter. Ironically she's 12 and I'm 41, same as the victims. We discussed the whole topic, I pointed out that it was a classic example of why I choose to carry, about how the sign law works (since they're posted from what I understand), about how ridiculous that there are places like schools where I can't carry, etc. At one point my daughter said, "Yeah Dad, I DO feel much safer when your around, knowing that you carry".

She gets it.
Author:  kecker [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Lenny7 wrote:
She gets it.


The downside is she doesn't vote for another six years.
Page 4 of 5 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/