Permit holder kills mugger in S. Minneapolis!

[tazdevil]

There is nothing to debate, you don't know any of the facts at all, weren't there, and conjecture doesn't help. What we don't know about the situation would fill a warehouse.

So your critique is unwise, unwarranted, and certainly doesn't help this guy.

What I am quoting there is what the permit holder is stating to the news media himself. That is NOT conjecture in any way. I agree there's many holes that need, and hopefully will be, filled. Debating the ethics makes us look better in the long run BECAUSE WE CARE ENOUGH TO DO THE RIGHT THING, which is exactly what the anti's do not want people believing about us. If we proceed to not question ourselves and our own decision making, and tell everyone who brings up the slightest dissimilar opinion to STFU, then we look like a bunch of non-caring, gun toting hooligans.

[goalie]

If we proceed to not question ourselves and our own decision making, and tell everyone who brings up the slightest dissimilar opinion to STFU, then we look like a bunch of non-caring, gun toting hooligans.

You miss the point. You don't have a **** clue what my opinion is, because I wouldn't post it in a public thread about something like this.

The STFU thing is advice. It applies to EVERYONE, regardless of what "opinion" they do or don't have. There will be plenty of time to debate what was done and how it was done AFTER this plays out without giving anyone or any government entity real or potential ammunition or trains of thought to pursue. But, I guess asking people to actually think about what the **** they are doing is waaaay too much to ask.


I'm sure all the armchair quarterbacks in this thread did a whole lot better in their first gunfight.....

[PHATSPEED7x]

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S2340303.shtml?cat=1

[Pinnacle]

There is nothing to debate, you don't know any of the facts at all, weren't there, and conjecture doesn't help. What we don't know about the situation would fill a warehouse.

So your critique is unwise, unwarranted, and certainly doesn't help this guy.

What I am quoting there is what the permit holder is stating to the news media himself. That is NOT conjecture in any way. I agree there's many holes that need, and hopefully will be, filled. Debating the ethics makes us look better in the long run BECAUSE WE CARE ENOUGH TO DO THE RIGHT THING, which is exactly what the anti's do not want people believing about us. If we proceed to not question ourselves and our own decision making, and tell everyone who brings up the slightest dissimilar opinion to STFU, then we look like a bunch of non-caring, gun toting hooligans.

Let me tell you something - "We care enough to do the right thing" WTF does that mean? Oh hang tight, let me translate: My ego just wont let me shut my mouth long enough to listen to someone that may have seen this happen to others before so therefore my blattering is to be taken as concern...

NOW is not the time to sit here and question ANYTHING. Let this play out as it will and Like I have maintained IT IS NOT YOUR BACON IN THE PAN. It is this fellows...

You werent there, I wasnt there, I dont know or care if what this fellow did was right or wrong... Just let it be.......

[traveler]

3-monkeys.jpg (19.06 KB) Viewed 3526 times

This is news. Just because it concerns someone who has a common interest as the rest of us doesn't make it any different. There is nothing (read: NOTHING) that could be posted that would affect the outcome of the shooter's situation one iota. Now, if one of the principals in this situation were to post details then that might be something that could incriminate them. Absent those specific people, as stated before, there is NOTHING here that might be posted that could have an impact on the outcome.

If anyone thinks that posts here will give someone "ammunition" of some sort I would suggest a review of all of the other posts in all of the other forums. Everyone here seems to support the Second Amendment, but not the First Amendment. Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Isn't there any other tune that could be played or is the needle stuck in that groove.

Then, if all else fails, belittle or marginalize those that do have the temerity to post and not "STFU".

Stick to the topic. If you choose not to post, fine. Telling others they should not post, or to tell them to STFU, is not board rule friendly.

[Dick Unger]

It's OK to talk about the news. I would recommend the shooter shut up, but it is tha nature of America that the rest of us discuss the news, and our system actually depends on it. Sometimes the discussion may dismay someone, it I was the shooter, I'd hope the news wore off. But it's something that should probably be discussed by other citizens.

What's best for the shooter and what's best for the rest of us are two different things.

[Pinnacle]

3-monkeys.jpg

This is news. Just because it concerns someone who has a common interest as the rest of us doesn't make it any different. There is nothing (read: NOTHING) that could be posted that would affect the outcome of the shooter's situation one iota. Now, if one of the principals in this situation were to post details then that might be something that could incriminate them. Absent those specific people, as stated before, there is NOTHING here that might be posted that could have an impact on the outcome.

If anyone thinks that posts here will give someone "ammunition" of some sort I would suggest a review of all of the other posts in all of the other forums. Everyone here seems to support the Second Amendment, but not the First Amendment. Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Isn't there any other tune that could be played or is the needle stuck in that groove.

Then, if all else fails, belittle or marginalize those that do have the temerity to post and not "STFU".

Stick to the topic. If you choose not to post, fine. Telling others they should not post, or to tell them to STFU, is not board rule friendly.

Then please report my posts and ask the Mod Staff to take action against me... Go Ahead, Please...
There are times when I dont particularly care for any rules, especially when I see someone else getting thrown to the wolves for everyones self satisfaction.

Critique of this guy who did the shooting SHOULD NOT BE DONE until his freedom is secured and there is a decision to NOT PRESS CHARGES....

Secure his freedom first - satisfy your own know it all position LATER.

Do I sound mean? Yup...... You would too if it were your ass in a sling

[White Horseradish]

How exactly does the opinion of some random (and pretty much anonymous) guy on the internet without any connection to the case whatsoever impact anything? Now, I could see your point if we were talking about someone asserting himself as an authority on the subject, like, say, a permit instructor whose name is known and can be verified, commenting on the case in a highly public fashion. Is MNGT really that influential?

[Paul]

Is MNGT really that influential?

No, but people like to feel important.

[Pinnacle]

How exactly does the opinion of some random (and pretty much anonymous) guy on the internet without any connection to the case whatsoever impact anything? Now, I could see your point if we were talking about someone asserting himself as an authority on the subject, like, say, a permit instructor whose name is known and can be verified, commenting on the case in a highly public fashion. Is MNGT really that influential?

All that I can say is that in the past with a similar situation, internet forum boards and some of the personalities behind them didnt offer a lot of help so someone that was in a load of trouble.

On ounce of prevention prevents a pound of prosecution.

[White Horseradish]

All that I can say is that in the past with a similar situation, internet forum boards and some of the personalities behind them didnt offer a lot of help so someone that was in a load of trouble.

On ounce of prevention prevents a pound of prosecution.

Didn't that situation involve someone who was a lot more than a random guy on the internet and a bit more than a post on a board?

[MN PTCT]

I see this as two seperate incidents. In incident one, the permit holder acts to protect ANOTHER. Robber flees. End of incident one. In incident two, the permit holder has a known criminal point a gun and/or shoot at the permit holder. Permit holder acts to defend HIMSELF. End of incident two. Which incident do you fault him for?

[JoeH]

And the dead guy? I'm sure he was just turning his life around but...]

Oh I see. You're saying he deserved to die.

Is that what I said? Because I don't remember that.

I will say that if you spend your time pistol-whipping folks to get their grocery money, you should fully expect that you might get killed while doing it.

+infinity

[rugersol]

And the dead guy? I'm sure he was just turning his life around but...]

Oh I see. You're saying he deserved to die.

Is that what I said? Because I don't remember that.

I will say that if you spend your time pistol-whipping folks to get their grocery money, you should fully expect that you might get killed while doing it.

+∞³

[goalie]

This is news. Just because it concerns someone who has a common interest as the rest of us doesn't make it any different. There is nothing (read: NOTHING) that could be posted that would affect the outcome of the shooter's situation one iota. Now, if one of the principals in this situation were to post details then that might be something that could incriminate them. Absent those specific people, as stated before, there is NOTHING here that might be posted that could have an impact on the outcome.

If anyone thinks that posts here will give someone "ammunition" of some sort I would suggest a review of all of the other posts in all of the other forums. Everyone here seems to support the Second Amendment, but not the First Amendment. Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Isn't there any other tune that could be played or is the needle stuck in that groove.

Then, if all else fails, belittle or marginalize those that do have the temerity to post and not "STFU".

Stick to the topic. If you choose not to post, fine. Telling others they should not post, or to tell them to STFU, is not board rule friendly.

If you think that there is absolutely ZERO chance that anyone with potential influence over legal or civil outcomes reads this, go ahead with your mental masturbation. As it is, I have not contributed to the nit-picking, nor will I. Obviously, people's desire to talk about something like a gaggle of old ladies is much more important to them than the possibility, however slight, that posts condemning the decision making of a person legally carrying a handgun during a lethal confrontation could influence the powers that be.

As for first amendment, it has nothing to do with an internet BB, unless you own it. Even if it did, my opinion that people should STFU stands, and is no more or less valid than some chairborn-ranger's opinion about what he/she would have done differently in the situation being held under the microscope.



Again, I am sure all the Monday morning quarterbacks did much better in their decision making during their first gunfight......