Customer shot dead trying to stop gunman

View · by **Hmac** on Mon May 02, 2016 6:49 pm

It's not all 80 year-olds and 11 year-olds killing their bad-guy attackers. If you're a private citizen carrying a gun with the expectation that you'll be enforcing the law...be prepared for the consequences.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/02/cu ... cmp=hplnws

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2016/05 ... eens.html/

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local ... 38237.html

The customer who tried stopping the shooting suspect also had a gun, according to police. Witnesses said he pointed his weapon at the suspect's car when the suspect fired, hitting the customer in the head.

The Good Samaritan witnessed the dispute and went to his car to retrieve a weapon, confronted Bradden and tried to make a citizen’s arrest, police said. Bradden, who had returned to his car in the parking lot, is accused of getting out and gunning down the Good Samaritan, police said.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local ... rylink=cpy

View · by **striped1** on Mon May 02, 2016 7:32 pm

absolutely zero point in doing what he did. Unless you are a cop you shouldn't trying to make any arrest. Dumb, just dumb.

View · by **xd9** on Mon May 02, 2016 9:52 pm

Yep, he should have been a good witness calling 911 instead of playing LEO and paying for it with his life. Very sad.

View · by **LePetomane** on Tue May 03, 2016 4:03 am

Being a Junior G-Man didn't turn out well for this guy.

View · by **Pat Cannon** on Tue May 03, 2016 7:58 am

Yep, a little too much testosterone on the part of both guys.

View · by **jshuberg** on Tue May 03, 2016 10:14 am

Performing a citizens arrest under most scenarios is a bad idea. However, it is a right that we all enjoy, codified in MN statute. A person has every right to place another person under arrest. It's not "playing cop" anymore than fixing your drain is "playing plumber".

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

View · by **Hmac** on Tue May 03, 2016 10:20 am

jshuberg wrote:Performing a citizens arrest under most scenarios is a bad idea. However, it is a right that we all enjoy, codified in MN statute. A person has every right to place another person under arrest. It's not "playing cop" anymore than fixing your drain is "playing plumber".

"Playing plumber" has created more problems for me over the years than it has solved, but the worst problem that I created for my self was a leaky pipe. In this case we're talking about guns, not pipe wrenches.

The dead samaritan in this scenario went to get his gun out of his car in order to effect that citizen's arrest. The citizen's arrest wasn't necessarily the bad idea. The gun was.

I do agree however that a citizen's arrest is usually going to be a bad idea.

View · by **jshuberg** on Tue May 03, 2016 12:23 pm

Yeah, I just want to make the distinction between what is smart and what is legal. Many people believe that "playing cop" is wrong and should result in legal consequences. The truth is the public are the police, and the police are the public. Sworn law enforcement officers are members of the public who have decided to make the enforcement of law their career choice, but every one of us has the right to enforce law and perform arrests.

There are obviously some practical differences. Cops have training most of us don't have. They have radios and backup. They have limited immunity when acting under color of law that the rest of us don't enjoy. And they have the power of their agencies and unions backing them up. An individual performing a private arrest doesn't have all of these things, and can place themselves in both physical and legal risk by performing an arrest.

The reason I want to make the distinction between legal and smart, is that the "playing cop" argument is one used by the antis, as well as criminals and their families. They currently "own the language" on this subject, and are in fact wrong when they believe that only sworn law enforcement has the right to arrest someone. It's a minor point in the larger argument of gun control, but it is a point that is very easily destroyed whenever it's brought up. All you need to do is refer them to the statute.

Whenever an anti or criminal brings up the "playing cop" argument, we should take the opportunity to go on offense, to stop them in their tracks and demonstrate they are wrong.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

View · by **Hmac** on Tue May 03, 2016 2:08 pm

jshuberg wrote:Yeah, I just want to make the distinction between what is smart and what is legal. Many people believe that "playing cop" is wrong and should result in legal consequences. The truth is the public are the police, and the police are the public. Sworn law enforcement officers are members of the public who have decided to make the enforcement of law their career choice, but every one of us has the right to enforce law and perform arrests.

There are obviously some practical differences. Cops have training most of us don't have. They have radios and backup. They have limited immunity when acting under color of law that the rest of us don't enjoy. And they have the power of their agencies and unions backing them up. An individual performing a private arrest doesn't have all of these things, and can place themselves in both physical and legal risk by performing an arrest.

The reason I want to make the distinction between legal and smart, is that the "playing cop" argument is one used by the antis, as well as criminals and their families. They currently "own the language" on this subject, and are in fact wrong when they believe that only sworn law enforcement has the right to arrest someone. It's a minor point in the larger argument of gun control, but it is a point that is very easily destroyed whenever it's brought up. All you need to do is refer them to the statute.

Whenever an anti or criminal brings up the "playing cop" argument, we should take the opportunity to go on offense, to stop them in their tracks and demonstrate they are wrong.

All great points. Even more impressive that you wrote that on your iPhone via Tapatalk.

View · by **LePetomane** on Tue May 03, 2016 6:15 pm

Does anyone really think that a citizen's arrest will stop a hoodlum in the process of committing a crime?

View · by **Rip Van Winkle** on Wed May 04, 2016 8:00 am

Not without the threat of deadly force.

View · by **jshuberg** on Wed May 04, 2016 1:46 pm

I had a friend who used "reasonable force" outside a bar to stop a drunk from doing bad things. After he knocked the guy out he placed him under citizens arrest and called the cops. It ended up working out well.

The reality is that most citizens arrests are actually performed by cops, either off duty or outside their jurisdiction. Occasionally though a private citizen performs an arrest, but there is a pretty significant risk in doing so.

View · by **Randygmn** on Wed May 04, 2016 11:37 pm

jshuberg wrote:Performing a citizens arrest under most scenarios is a bad idea. However, it is a right that we all enjoy, codified in MN statute. A person has every right to place another person under arrest. It's not "playing cop" anymore than fixing your drain is "playing plumber".

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You wouldn't happen to have a link to that statute? Would very much like to read it. Thx

View · by **Squib Joe** on Thu May 05, 2016 6:23 am

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id ... &year=2011

629.37 WHEN PRIVATE PERSON MAY MAKE ARREST.

A private person may arrest another:

(1) for a public offense committed or attempted in the arresting person's presence;

(2) when the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the arresting person's presence; or

(3) when a felony has in fact been committed, and the arresting person has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

View · by **hammAR** on Thu May 05, 2016 11:40 am

Just an all-round cluster f**k........
active shooter and you are going to "arrest" them................. :paper: