Permit holder kills mugger in S. Minneapolis!

[chunkstyle]

http://www.startribune.com/local/132289623.html

"When [the police] arrived, a man with a gun who said he had a valid concealed-weapon permit approached [the police] and said he had interrupted the robbery of a woman in her 60s. The man said that he had pursued the robbers, a male and a female, on foot, that gunfire was exchanged and he shot and killed the male robber."

The pursuit part is what worries me. Was he an unwilling participant?

This one bears watching.

[shooter115]

Wow, this one is going to be all about the details of how the event occured. Chasing down a mugger then a later exchage of gunfire....I hope he has a good lawyer. In my opinion carrying a weapon is all about protecting me and my family alone, thats my priority. If you want to be safe, carry your own gun. I'm not here to protect you. That's the stance I am forced to take in todays lawyer over run society. I'm sorry, and it's truly unfortunate that it is the way it is.

Take the lawyers out of it. The scumbag got what he deserved!!!

[tim]

This will be very interesting. Just because I'm carrying doesn't mean I'm going to let someone get mugged but because I am carrying the court now has a case against me that maybe I wouldn't have acted had I not had a gun.. But, if the bad guy fired or even drew on me, then I'm in the right to defend..

I hope to never encounter a situation like this. Atleast the bad guy isn't a witness, assuming the permit holder wasn't the bad guy too..

[Paul]

Atleast the bad guy isn't a witness, assuming the permit holder wasn't the bad guy too..

Sometimes it's worse for you when you're the only 'witness' still alive.

When it's your word against a dead man... It becomes open to interpretation.

[cobb]

The report I saw indicates there is another witness, a female accomplice in the robbery.

[tazdevil]

http://www.startribune.com/local/132289623.html

" The man said that he had pursued the robbers, a male and a female, on foot, that gunfire was exchanged and he shot and killed the male robber."

The pursuit part is what worries me. Was he an unwilling participant?

This one bears watching.

That's where he can get into trouble. He was not a unwilling participant as the mugging had been stopped (he interrupted them) and according to the article, as well as the mans OWN STATEMENTS; the muggers where fleeing, and he pursued them. As soon as the muggers ran, he was not in any danger if the story is exactly as it says. He also violated the "DO NOT TALK TO ANYONE WITHOUT A LAWYER PRESENT" part. As much as he could be considered a "hero" this also screams of vigilantiasm. The defending part is ours; the pursuing part is for the Police, not Carry holders (at least not this carry holder).

[Heffay]

He's screwed, and in the process screwing over the gun rights community. And going to give the phrase "blood running in the streets" some credence. Chasing down the suspect? This wouldn't even hold up if the castle doctrine had been passed!

Thanks, buddy.

The title of this thread needs more thought. It almost seems excited that this happened. This is a bad thing.

[selurcspi]

This is a bad thing.

Hey Pink pony, is that your LEGAL opinion?

[shadeslanding]

This will be very interesting. Just because I'm carrying doesn't mean I'm going to let someone get mugged but because I am carrying the court now has a case against me that maybe I wouldn't have acted had I not had a gun.. But, if the bad guy fired or even drew on me, then I'm in the right to defend..

I hope to never encounter a situation like this. Atleast the bad guy isn't a witness, assuming the permit holder wasn't the bad guy too..

+1

And you're in the right if you have a reasonable basis to believe that the perp REMAINS a threat to you or another in terms of fearing great bodily harm. An armed robber who just pistol whipped an elderly woman IS an immediate threat to others in the vicinity.

And the permit holder absolutely has the right to defend himself if the permit holder was fired upon or as you say Tim, even drawn upon.

He (the permit holder in the story) should now shut up (which he should have done earlier) and call a good lawyer.

[photogpat]

I'm guessing this doesn't qualify as a test case, except in the court of public
opinion.

[OldmanFCSA]

"pursued" - who is now the "aggressor"?

This is going to be a problem for us!

Too many licensee's have the opinion that they have the same rights as police, now that they have their concealed carry permits. THIS IS WRONG, and needs to be stopped with better training in the classroom, and with other means, which in this case will be a "Court of Law".

[Squib Joe]

Just because he identified himself as being involved doesn't mean he talked without contacting his lawyer first - he may have.

[Squib Joe]

"pursued" - who is now the "aggressor"?

The media reports he was chasing the guy down. That doesn't mean it went down that way. Wait for the facts to come in!

[Stradawhovious]

"pursued" - who is now the "aggressor"?

The media reports he was chasing the guy down. That doesn't mean it went down that way. Wait for the facts to come in!

You mean the media might be reporting things in a fashion other than the way they actually happened?

[gasp]

Say it ain't so Joe......

Say it ain't so.

[ijosef]

The report I saw indicates there is another witness, a female accomplice in the robbery.

Yep, and I'm sure her eyewitness account will be 100% accurate! I was thinking the exact same thing when I read the story. She'll probably spin some yard as to how her late accomplice and her were chased down by a raving lunatic with a gun for no reason. Of course she'll also claim that the deceased male and her "din do nuffins."

My other thought when I read the article was "Gee, that guy did the opposite of what I was taught in my PTC class." It would be one thing to shoot the lowlife if he was pointing the gun at the victim's head, but to chase him after the robbery was over... not so good.

Either way, I hope he lawyered up.