4 Men Charged in Minneapolis 4th Precinct Shooting

[45Badger]

This thread is a like an argument with my wife. She compares apples and oranges (my not listening to her vs. her spending too much time at yoga and spin class). I think all parties (BLM and the four idiots) are stupid. The four idiots did the shooting and will win a bigger "stupid prize".

There are no rewards for being slightly less stupid other than possibly avoiding getting prosecuted. I watched some of the videos of BLM folks and most seemed to have won life's lottery- well born, well educated, well spoken, great career prospects. Life is hard. It's harder if you are stupid.

[jshuberg]

The riot charge seems to apply to their behavior perfectly. While it's possible for a person to regain their reluctant participant status by retreating, there are most likely limits to what sort of behavior or willing participation can be zeroed out by retreating. I'm going to guess that self defense claims made after retreating from engaging in riotous behavior is one of the limitations. Just my guess...

If they had simply gone down to video, and happened to be attacked, that would be one thing. Instead they went down there seeking a confrontation, and to cause trouble, while armed. They got more than they bargained for.

There is a lesson here beyond the "do stupid things, win stupid prizes", and that is when you decide to arm yourself, you are expected to behave in a responsible, adult manner. Any incident you find yourself I is by definition an armed incident. If you remove the firearm from the BLM incident, riot charges wouldn't apply, and self defense would be an easier scenario to believe.

In short, the root of the problem was likely that he let his gun do the thinking. He felt emboldened by carrying it, and acted in a way other than what he likely would have done without the gun.

As a rule, don't go places or do things you wouldn't if you didn't have your gun. Carrying a firearm is not a mitigation against bad things happening, it's a contingency should all your other mitigating actions fail you, and you find yourself in a life threatening situation. The best mitigation against violence is conflict avoidance. These idiots did the opposite, and sought out a conflict while armed and are going to be paying dearly for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MWAG]

The riot charge seems to apply to their behavior perfectly. While it's possible for a person to regain their reluctant participant status by retreating, there are most likely limits to what sort of behavior or willing participation can be zeroed out by retreating. I'm going to guess that self defense claims made after retreating from engaging in riotous behavior is one of the limitations. Just my guess...

If they had simply gone down to video, and happened to be attacked, that would be one thing. Instead they went down there seeking a confrontation, and to cause trouble, while armed. They got more than they bargained for.

There is a lesson here beyond the "do stupid things, win stupid prizes", and that is when you decide to arm yourself, you are expected to behave in a responsible, adult manner. Any incident you find yourself I is by definition an armed incident. If you remove the firearm from the BLM incident, riot charges wouldn't apply, and self defense would be an easier scenario to believe.

In short, the root of the problem was likely that he let his gun do the thinking. He felt emboldened by carrying it, and acted in a way other than what he likely would have done without the gun.

As a rule, don't go places or do things you wouldn't if you didn't have your gun. Carrying a firearm is not a mitigation against bad things happening, it's a contingency should all your other mitigating actions fail you, and you find yourself in a life threatening situation. The best mitigation against violence is conflict avoidance. These idiots did the opposite, and sought out a conflict while armed and are going to be paying dearly for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll chime in on this since I have been following this since the beginning.

The 4 individuals that went down there were not all the same ones that have gone down on previous nights.
1 of the 4 is Asian (there goes that whole white supremacy theory)
It is believed that at least 1 of them had a PRO-BLM sign. (again, no white supremacy)
The 4 were there for less than 5 minutes before confronted
They were on public property
No racial comments or any inflammatory remarks were made by the 4 were mentioned by the eyewitnesses.
1 was then struck and/or pushed up against a fence for not complying with removing their face masks. Note: it's cold out, and others have masks on.
The 4 retreated and were followed by multiple "BLM security" for at least a block
Multiple BLM protesters warning the "security" that they may be armed.
The 4 were assaulted again, one sustaining facial laceration, and were then cornered against a fence.
"BLM security" continued to assault the 4, and a .45 was pulled and discharged 8 times, wounding 5.
Video recorded by 1 of the 4 (no audio) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc3c6cK9p_w
Eyewitnesses in the BLM camp
http://www.wnd.com/wnd_video/5-black-li ... OpTVCDV.99

While going down to a BLM protest isn't the brightest thing in the world; being on public property, not committing a crime, legally armed and defending yourself from great bodily harm isn't against the law. I see nothing here that negates the "reluctant participant" requirements of a self defense situation. But, IANAL, YMMV, Please allow 4-6 weeks for shipping and handling.

[jshuberg]

Great bodily harm. "Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm.

The courts have ruled that getting into a fight, getting your ass kicked, and even having bones broken does not meet the criteria of great bodily harm. It must be a permanent injury. Being pushed, being punched, and the types of things that have been described about the incident most likely do not reach this standard. If one of them was swinging a hammer, yes. If one of them was smashing a persons head into the pavement, yes. Being shoved or punched, no. Anyone who fires their weapon at someone for having punched them has committed a crime. Presuming this goes to trial, a jury is going to have to decide if a reasonable person would have concluded that the level of force they were being assaulted with meets the definition of great bodily harm.

It's possible that with an extremely good lawyer they might be found not guilty, but the deck is most certainly stacked against them.

[BigBlue]

The courts have ruled that getting into a fight, getting your ass kicked, and even having bones broken does not meet the criteria of great bodily harm. It must be a permanent injury. Being pushed, being punched, and the types of things that have been described about the incident most likely do not reach this standard. If one of them was swinging a hammer, yes. If one of them was smashing a persons head into the pavement, yes. Being shoved or punched, no. Anyone who fires their weapon at someone for having punched them has committed a crime. Presuming this goes to trial, a jury is going to have to decide if a reasonable person would have concluded that the level of force they were being assaulted with meets the definition of great bodily harm.

It's possible that with an extremely good lawyer they might be found not guilty, but the deck is most certainly stacked against them.

Good points. But in this case the disparity in numbers of people may well make their case. Being set upon by an angry, racist mob does lead to risk of great bodily harm.

[Rip Van Winkle]

I predict this will never make it to trial. All involved will reach a plea deal to lesser charges.

[Snowgun]

Great bodily harm. "Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm.

The courts have ruled that getting into a fight, getting your ass kicked, and even having bones broken does not meet the criteria of great bodily harm. It must be a permanent injury. Being pushed, being punched, and the types of things that have been described about the incident most likely do not reach this standard. If one of them was swinging a hammer, yes. If one of them was smashing a persons head into the pavement, yes. Being shoved or punched, no. Anyone who fires their weapon at someone for having punched them has committed a crime. Presuming this goes to trial, a jury is going to have to decide if a reasonable person would have concluded that the level of force they were being assaulted with meets the definition of great bodily harm.

It's possible that with an extremely good lawyer they might be found not guilty, but the deck is most certainly stacked against them.

While I totally get this, i'm curious about the punch thing. Remember the cop who punched that guy out at the restaurant and gave him brain damage? or all the knockout punch games that were happening a while ago? There are many cases where punches have killed. And if the punch doesn't cause GBH, that doesn't mean what they decide to do after the punch won't when you are not able to defend yourself.
Now saying that, it seems super subjective whether somebody coming to punch you will meet the statute, however are you required to wait until they cause great bodily harm? (i'm being hyperbolic here) I'm assuming you need to explain how devoid of all other escape options, a reasonably person would take the specific situation and believe GBH was imminent. Is there any precedent?

[Randygmn]

Great bodily harm. "Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm.

The courts have ruled that getting into a fight, getting your ass kicked, and even having bones broken does not meet the criteria of great bodily harm. It must be a permanent injury. Being pushed, being punched, and the types of things that have been described about the incident most likely do not reach this standard. If one of them was swinging a hammer, yes. If one of them was smashing a persons head into the pavement, yes. Being shoved or punched, no. Anyone who fires their weapon at someone for having punched them has committed a crime. Presuming this goes to trial, a jury is going to have to decide if a reasonable person would have concluded that the level of force they were being assaulted with meets the definition of great bodily harm.

It's possible that with an extremely good lawyer they might be found not guilty, but the deck is most certainly stacked against them.

Massad Ayoob has spoken quite a bit about disparity of force and numbers. I absolutely think this will be a mitigating factor.

[jshuberg]

The test is that a reasonable person placed in your situation would have believed that great bodily harm or death was imminent. A reasonable person is a made-up person invented by the prosecutors office, by a grand jury, or by a trial jury. If any of those groups of people collectively come to the conclusion that a reasonable person would have believed death or great bodily harm was imminent, then you acted lawfully - provided the other 3 criteria for use of deadly force were also met.

The term imminent means that the danger (great bodily harm or death) is basically a forgone conclusion, and that it's in the process of or about to happen. The mere possibility of something happening doesn't pass the imminent test. Again it comes down to to whether a reasonable person would have believed the danger was definitely about to happen if you didn't act. Shooting someone because you feared that if he punched you that you would fall down and crack your head on the pavement resulting in permanent brain damage would most likely be a difficult sell.

The less obvious the answers are for your actions and what you reasonably believed, the further down the following course of events you are likely to go:

Arrested
Charged
Grand Jury
Trial
Convicted

Being right can still be devastating to you, but you'll still be alive. To the greatest extent possible, you want it to be so plainly obvious that you were in the right that you're not even arrested, but you can't count on that. Every one of these things costs you more money, more time, and destroys your life a little more. Even if you were legally in the right - just ask George Zimmerman.

[jshuberg]

Massad Ayoob has spoken quite a bit about disparity of force and numbers. I absolutely think this will be a mitigating factor.

True, but keep in mind that he defends people whose case has already gone to trial, and is describing the outcome of a very lengthy and expensive process. You should not read his analysis to mean that if you say "disparity of force" to the police they'll automatically let you go home that night. Something as ambiguous as disparity of force as a justification in a self defense shooting will very likely go to trial so that a jury can examine your actions for lawfulness and reasonableness.

As I said in the previous post - being right can still ruin your life. The more you can avoid the conflict in the first place, or deescalate it, or otherwise do anything possible to not getting to the point of having to shoot someone in self defense the better.

[goalie]

The thing I find interesting is that everyone is fixated on how big of idiots these guys were BEFORE the incident. And they were. Epic idiots.

But, let's imagine for a moment that they had not been on social media being morons. The BLM folks confronted them. They tried to retreat. They were repeatedly assaulted. They were vastly outnumbered.

Regardless of what I think about their judgement prior to the event, I fail to see how a good lawyer wouldn't get them off on any assault/attempted murder charges. I am torn on the rioting charges, as what they were doing was certainly not "worse" than what the BLM people have been doing all-along (see video with them saying the black cop should kill himself etc...etc....etc.....) but, as I always say, stupid is supposed to hurt.

I don't want a politicized case of "when idiots collide" to set precedent in MN that could be interpreted to mean one is not justified in using deadly force against a numerical disparity of force.

[connsolo]

The thing I find interesting is that everyone is fixated on how big of idiots these guys were BEFORE the incident. And they were. Epic idiots.

But, let's imagine for a moment that they had not been on social media being morons. The BLM folks confronted them. They tried to retreat. They were repeatedly assaulted. They were vastly outnumbered.

Regardless of what I think about their judgement prior to the event, I fail to see how a good lawyer wouldn't get them off on any assault/attempted murder charges. I am torn on the rioting charges, as what they were doing was certainly not "worse" than what the BLM people have been doing all-along (see video with them saying the black cop should kill himself etc...etc....etc.....) but, as I always say, stupid is supposed to hurt.

I don't want a politicized case of "when idiots collide" to set precedent in MN that could be interpreted to mean one is not justified in using deadly force against a numerical disparity of force.

Why they were there has everything to do with it.

[mrp]

http://www.startribune.com/scarsella-gu ... 412476503/

Scarsella guilty of assault, riot in 2015 protest shooting

In a verdict met with surprise and relief, a Hennepin County jury convicted Allen “Lance” Scarsella of felony first-degree assault and riot charges Wednesday in the November 2015 shooting of five people at a north Minneapolis protest.

[BigBlue]

I guess a lesson learned here is that legal decisions will be made based on the totality of the scenario, going back to mindset of people involved before the situation occurred. If you take this situation from just before the violence until the shooting it looks a lot like it is justified. Obviously the prosecutor and jury took in all the info to form their decision.

Of course, this only pertains to individual law-breakers. When you get a mob of people together breaking the law and causing violence then there really are no consequences for them. The authorities will use the "it is not possible to properly obtain evidence that <individual1> broke a law so we can't prosecute". Lesson #2 learned: If you want to break the law bring a mob.

BB

[rtk]

"Don't go stupid places. Don't hang out with stupid people. Don't do stupid things." ~ John Farnam

This pretty much sums the entire thing up!