Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 6:09 am

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




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 Yet another one more reason> 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:55 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
Scott Hughes wrote:
The whole thing is yet another reason for Castle Doctrine :!:



The whole thing is yet another reason for <s>Castle Doctrine</s> <u>Stand Your Ground</u> legislation. :!:

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:56 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 9:55 pm
Posts: 598
Location: Dundas, Minnesota
Hoodlum grabs 12yr. old's ass? Dad has a reaction? Hoodlum calls in backup? Dad shoots a couple? Scott County? I'd feel pretty comfortable with a jury trial. I'd probably have to beg my father for $$$. I know I'd have to get another mortgage. Oh well.

Every man who walked past this event needs to proceed directly to his woodshed and whip his own ass.

_________________
I say I'm cleaning guns... My wife says I'm petting them.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:19 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:57 am
Posts: 818
Location: Apple Valley, MN
bensdad wrote:
Every man who walked past this event needs to proceed directly to his woodshed and whip his own ass.


My thoughts too. It sounds like the wife and other female relatives tried to intervene and save the guy.

It happened just inside the gate, at closing time. You know there had to be at least a couple strapping men around that could have helped the guy out. Or at least torn a couple of the a-holes off his back.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:46 pm 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
aypstony wrote:
Yikes, seven perps. If the father had been a permit holder and fired shots, it would be hard for him prove he was a reluctant participant in this incident.


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.


Last edited by kimberman on Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:26 am, edited 4 times in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:16 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 7:51 pm
Posts: 372
Location: Lakeville
kimberman wrote:
. 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.

But valleyfair is posted.. and they have their own security force.. :roll:

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..

_________________
Certified MN Carry Permit instructor
check http://www.mncarrytraining.com/ for info

My Homebrew journal http://brew.goalie.cx


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:19 pm 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
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.

They'll pay $$$ to settle the case. They don't want to set a precedent.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:41 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:46 pm
Posts: 845
Location: Saint Paul
Valley Fair most likely will be sued. They are the only ones with deep pockets in the entire group. It would be an interesting case IF the victim were a permit holder and IF he had left his weapon in the parking lot or home due to the signage. It might be moot as a legal point, but a jury pondering damages might be interested.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: What would you do?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:55 pm 
Journeyman Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:05 pm
Posts: 92
Location: Becker
I've been thinking about this and have a couple of scenarios...

1. If this happened to you what would you do? Carrying or Not Carrying.

My answer, but I want to hear yours too: I have 3 daughters and if this happened to me, I would have definitely verbally confronted the 2, whether I was carrying or not. When the others showed up... Carrying: I would have tried to talk to them, but if it was obvious that a beating was coming. Draw with threat and hope that it ended there. If it didn't, then I think that 8 on 1 is enough for me to be in danger. Not Carrying: I would have to try and protect my family any way I could.

2. If you were a bystander and witnessed this, what would you do? Carrying or Not.

This is a tough one for me... I would like to think that I would help the guy BUT Not Carrying: My chances are pretty slim that I'm going to make a difference. It is very likely that I end up with the same injuries he has. I would try to get others to go in with me to help, but I don't know how that would work. Carrying: I'm still not sure what I would do here. If myself or my family is not in danger I'm not sure I would be drawing

_________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' " Ronald Reagan


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:36 pm 
Journeyman Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:05 am
Posts: 60
Location: St Paul, MN
Thanks for the replies, sorry for the dupe thread. Pocket carry at VF would be ideal (just make sure it doesn't fall out when you're on the Looping Starship).

As to what I'd have done, I'd like to say I'd have drawn down and tried to put a stop to it, it seems to meet the 4 reasons for drawing a weapon as outlined in Joel's book and class. But. Saying what you'd do is different than being there. A gang of 8+ people on one. They might turn on you, and if you draw, you'd better be prepared to shoot.

If I was there alone, or with a group that can get away on their own, maybe. With the family, if it included kids, maybe not. Be a witness, maybe trip someone, maybe shout "Cops", but I remember something I read somewhere else: If it's worth ten thousand dollars to you, and you have no other alternative, shoot. If not, don't. Think of the cost to you and yours of you do draw and have to shoot. Is it worth it to you to protect someone else at the financial cost if you fire a shot? Even if you don't, brandishing is still a charge, though it might not be leveled in this case.

I know we all think of scenarios, but I just don't know. Even intervening physically w/o a firearm, if you're armed, could be risky.

thanks


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:19 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:09 pm
Posts: 965
Location: North Minneapolis
Drizzle wrote:
Thanks for the replies, sorry for the dupe thread. Pocket carry at VF would be ideal (just make sure it doesn't fall out when you're on the Looping Starship).

As to what I'd have done, I'd like to say I'd have drawn down and tried to put a stop to it, it seems to meet the 4 reasons for drawing a weapon as outlined in Joel's book and class. But. Saying what you'd do is different than being there. A gang of 8+ people on one. They might turn on you, and if you draw, you'd better be prepared to shoot.

If I was there alone, or with a group that can get away on their own, maybe. With the family, if it included kids, maybe not. Be a witness, maybe trip someone, maybe shout "Cops", but I remember something I read somewhere else: If it's worth ten thousand dollars to you, and you have no other alternative, shoot. If not, don't. Think of the cost to you and yours of you do draw and have to shoot. Is it worth it to you to protect someone else at the financial cost if you fire a shot? Even if you don't, brandishing is still a charge, though it might not be leveled in this case.

I know we all think of scenarios, but I just don't know. Even intervening physically w/o a firearm, if you're armed, could be risky.

thanks


I agree, except there is no Brandishing law in MN.

_________________
It is about Liberty!

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Chris


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What would you do?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:30 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:04 am
Posts: 337
Location: FarmLakeMount
montana_redneck wrote:
2. If you were a bystander and witnessed this, what would you do? Carrying or Not.


If I was seeing someone get the crap kicked out of them, I don't think I could NOT try to help that person.

I think Toby Keith says it best - "I ain't as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was."


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:28 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:44 pm
Posts: 1525
Location: Isanti, MN
Andrew Rothman wrote:
Scott Hughes wrote:
The whole thing is yet another reason for Castle Doctrine :!:



The whole thing is yet another reason for <s>Castle Doctrine</s> <u>Stand Your Ground</u> legislation. :!:


You are correct. Thanks Andrew.

_________________
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
- Winston Churchill -


WITHOUT LIBERTY THERE IS NO FREEDOM


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:00 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:28 pm
Posts: 273
Location: Rosemount, MN
Scott Hughes wrote:
Andrew Rothman wrote:
Scott Hughes wrote:
The whole thing is yet another reason for Castle Doctrine :!:



The whole thing is yet another reason for <s>Castle Doctrine</s> <u>Stand Your Ground</u> legislation. :!:


You are correct. Thanks Andrew.


Your dam right!

Although personally i would've had a hard time not drawing my firearm being beaten by 8 men, no wait, cowards. Especially ones who sexually assault my daughter. These guys are scum, if you see there pics you'll know exactly what im talking about. Its a good thing these scumbags didn't have a gun because i have a feeling this guy would be much worse off.

Where was the security? Oh yea the same place cops are when crimes are being committed, just minutes away.

This guy is probably going to win a monster lawsuit from ValleyFair (not that it makes it worth it) but he obviously can't sue these scumbags because he won't get a penny from them, and if i had to guess them and there families are living off uncle sam anyways.

_________________
"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of goverment with three little words 'We The People'. We the people tell the government what to do, It doesn't tell us."
The Late Great Ronald Reagan

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

Campus Leader-IHCC
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus
www.concealedcampus.org


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What would you do?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:19 am 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
Sipowicz wrote:

If I was seeing someone get the crap kicked out of them, I don't think I could NOT try to help that person.

I think Toby Keith says it best - "I ain't as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was."


Ditto.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:25 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 7:40 am
Posts: 1204
Location: Golden Valley, MN
This is one of my nightmare scenarios, like many others I could not stand by and watch 8 people beat some guy to death, but on the other hand I am reluctant to put my self in the legal situation that would develop from armed intervention.

I am thinking that in this particular case you might shout at the thugs to stop and if they responded by moving towards you in a threatening manner I would imagine it would not be difficult to make the point that you feared Death or GBH from an assault.

The people moving towards you just abandoned their physical assault on another, there are a number of them, they have demonstrated their willingness to use violence to further their goals so would shooting at that point be reasonable? I would think so.

_________________
MN DNR Certified FAS Instructor
NRA Pistol, PPITH, and PPOTH Certified Instructor
IFIA MCPPA Certified Instructor

"For those who fight for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
-Unknown

Honorably Discharged member of Uncle Sam's Underwater Canoe Club.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

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


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 62 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

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group