Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 3:10 pm

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.  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Twin Cities bus incident - driver attacked 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:14 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:11 am
Posts: 572
Location: West of Hope, MN (S. Central MN)
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:18 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 2:40 pm
Posts: 379
Location: Hopkins
Draw and shoot (if required) only if the attacker moves to <i><b> YOU </i></b>

:!:

_________________
Best,
Timothy


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:25 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:25 pm
Posts: 367
Location: Forest Lake, MN
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.

_________________
Pork Chop Sandwiches!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:36 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:02 am
Posts: 1684
Location: St Louis Park
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.

_________________
Of the people, By the People, For the People. The government exists to serve us, not the reverse.

--------------------
Next MN carry permit class: TBD.

Permit to Carry MN
--------------------

jason <at> metrodefense <dot> com


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:19 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
Yep, what Wally said.

_________________
* 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: Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:24 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:09 am
Posts: 983
Location: Brewster
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.

_________________
Professional Firearms Training. LLC.
http://www.mngunclass.com


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:53 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:56 pm
Posts: 1109
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:02 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:25 pm
Posts: 367
Location: Forest Lake, MN
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: )

_________________
Pork Chop Sandwiches!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:04 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:17 pm
Posts: 908
Location: Meeker Co., MN
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?

_________________
1 of 55153
"The attitude of people associating guns with nothing but crime, that is what has to be changed. I grew up at a time when people were not afraid of people with firearms." —Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Sierra Trading - Firearms Sales, Service and Training


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:09 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:02 am
Posts: 1684
Location: St Louis Park
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.

_________________
Of the people, By the People, For the People. The government exists to serve us, not the reverse.

--------------------
Next MN carry permit class: TBD.

Permit to Carry MN
--------------------

jason <at> metrodefense <dot> com


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:13 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:39 pm
Posts: 533
Location: Mankato Area
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:58 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:53 pm
Posts: 1421
Location: South Minneapolis (East of Lake Nokomis)
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:43 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:56 pm
Posts: 1109
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?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:58 am 
Senior Member

Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:45 pm
Posts: 353
Location: Minnetonka
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


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:33 pm 
Journeyman Member

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:57 pm
Posts: 53
Location: St. Paul
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  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: No registered users and 3 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