This is what gives the rest of us a bad name

[RERICK]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. 1 .Some dirt bag thief was stealing from the local folk. 2. No local police force
3. This wasn't the first time. 4. The gun wasn't loaded. 5. I don't believe for one second that his girlfriend did not know what he was doing.She should be in jail too for putting the kid in harms way.

Besides that he never asked if he should blow them away.According to the paper he said the following:

“I got the shotgun on them right now,” Englund told the dispatcher.

“Stop or I’ll blow them tires ... Don’t come no closer; get in that car,” Englund’s voice was heard after he and the car he was following stopped.

“Should I blow ‘em?” he asked.

The guy was a hero to most of his neighbors for what he did. Go to the link below and read for yourselves.I could possibly agree that maybe he went a little too far. Bottom line nobody got hurt. I also think that maybe this incident may help with the local crime issues by either getting some more help for the local sheriffs office and or some patrols in the area of the incident. Or not. I doubt anyone will try to tangle with the farmer anytime soon LOL.
Me, I would be proud to have a stand up guy like Mr Englund for a neighbor




http://isanticountynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=122&Itemid=1

 

[Eghad]

I would say that the wrong man is in jail. Which one do you think is the greater threat to the community? Which man would you rather have for a neighbor?

Its easy to say that now....but those facts were not known by the sheriff at the time of the inital offense. Does the sheriff have a unit that can predict future crimes? You can only arrest a person for what has occured with probable cause. Does every department use the NCIC or do they use it correctly???? The system isnt perfect....

The wheels of justice do grind slow sometimes....or sometimes they just fail altogether..and sometimes they work as designed

I think that as armed citizens we can learn what knowledge we need to have from this incident to avoid the fate of the farmer.

 

[gc70]

My, my - interesting tidbits in this story from the local newspaper:

Englund, according to the 9-1-1 recording, explained he had a shotgun, which turned out to be without shells.

“I got the shotgun on them right now,” Englund told the dispatcher.

“Stop or I’ll blow them tires ... Don’t come no closer; get in that car,” Englund’s voice was heard after he and the car he was following stopped.

“Should I blow ‘em?” he asked.

The dispatcher repeatedly told Englund not to shoot the gun, and when she inquired if it was loaded, Englund affirmed it wasn’t

The other vehicle was registered to a 22-year-old Isanti woman, who had been driving; the passengers included a 29-year-old Elk River man and the woman’s 3-year-old son.

The Elk River man admitted to attempting to take gas from a truck that was located on an abandoned farm, where Englund discovered them and pointed a rifle at them before they took off, according to the criminal complaint.

Though Englund said he did not witness the adults take anything from the property, he noted they were riding in the same vehicle he had observed the day before when a radiator had been taken from a truck. Again, he said he did not see the radiator stolen from the previous day; he simply observed the vehicle in the area, the complaint said.

Further, Englund went out of his way to help the county; he followed directions from the dispatcher and was never told to stop following the vehicle, Toder said.

 

[Al Norris]

Interesting, to say the least, gc70.

Interesting, because we now know the source from whence the "blow then away" comments came from, and interesting because none of the naysayers have chimed in.

It's also interesting that this man was in contact with the sheriffs office for most of the time, obeying their directives, And yet, it is he that is charged with felonies and he that is taking the heat for a failed LE.

I have waited, since shortly after gc70 posted this new info, for some of you that wished to crucify Englund to say something. You were all so adamant about the wrongs this guy committed, where are you now?

Though Englund said he did not witness the adults take anything from the property, he noted they were riding in the same vehicle he had observed the day before when a radiator had been taken from a truck. Again, he said he did not see the radiator stolen from the previous day; he simply observed the vehicle in the area, the complaint said.

While this may not be probable cause, it is, at the least, reasonable suspicion.

The link I gave to NorthStar Media shed a little more light on this subject. I was beginning to waver in my defense of Englund, because of that news article. But the link to the Isanti County News contains information that lays bare the "facts" of all the other links.

 

[Eghad]

So did the farmer do a Terry stop?

so you think that anybody should be able to be arrested and charged on reasonable suspicion? Or even warrants issued on reasonable suspicion?

In most states whether or not the gun is loaded or broken is immaterial. I wonder if this state is the same?


from the story also

“He (Englund) was trying to make a citizen’s arrest; it would be problematic if an officer behaved in this way,” Conlin added.

Peace officer conduct

According to the section, “Authorized use of deadly force by peace officers,” under state statute, “deadly force” means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm.

Further, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only when necessary:

• to protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;

• to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the officer reasonably believes the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person’s apprehension is delayed.

Meanwhile, under the section, “When force may be used to make arrest:”

If a peace officer has informed a defendant that the officer intends to arrest the defendant, and if the defendant then flees or forcibly resists arrest, the officer may use all necessary and lawful means to make the arrest but may not use deadly force unless authorized to do so.

So are you advocating that if you deem the law incapable of catching petty thieves that breaking the law is permissible as long as your intentions are good?

When that shoplifter takes that $1.59 piece of candy from your store do you draw your firearm and chase him down?

 

[RERICK]

Yes

So are you advocating that if you deem the law incapable of catching petty thieves that breaking the law is permissible as long as your intentions are good?

If you put that way and in this case,Yes. Like I have already said,
The guy was a hero to most of his neighbors for what he did. Go to the link below and read for yourselves.I could possibly agree that maybe he went a little too far. Bottom line nobody got hurt. I also think that maybe this incident may help with the local crime issues by either getting some more help for the local sheriffs office and or some patrols in the area of the incident. Or not. I doubt anyone will try to tangle with the farmer anytime soon LOL.
Me, I would be proud to have a stand up guy like Mr Englund for a neighbor

 

[OBIWAN]

"You were all so adamant about the wrongs this guy committed, where are you now"

Still right here

I still believe he was ill advised (at best) to take the actions he did

If he had tried to "blow the tires" and had managed to injure/kill someone in the car he would likely be tried for manslaughter

And were I on the jury I would vote for conviction

Especially since he had nothing other than suspicion that they had stolen anything and no reason to fear for his life



Incidently....if all 3 had been killed (including the 3 yr old) there would likely be no evidence of any crime other than by Englund

Even with this outcome, I would still be likely to vote to convict for assault

"riding in the same vehicle he had observed the day before "

Based on what?

A license number? (if so, had he provided it to the police?)

Or just a similar car......wouldn't it have been great if the neighbors son had a similar car and Englund shot him while he was looking for the spare key in the flower box

Before any of you jump on me for "what ifs"

I firmly believe that you need to judge the mans actions by what he KNEW

Not what turned out to be the case

He KNEW nothing other than the car looked like (or was) the car that was around the area when another theft occured

And based on that he chased them down and threatened them with a firearm

To determine if it was reasonable behavior, ask your self...what if he was wrong??

Although in this case, right or wrong I believe he escalated things past the bounds of good sense

 

[Playboypenguin]

so you think that anybody should be able to be arrested and charged on reasonable suspicion? Or even warrants issued on reasonable suspicion?

Yeah, if that was the precedent, how long do you think it would be before people starting saying owning a handgun is reasonable suspicion that someone is going to shoot someone or commit a crime?

 

[Playboypenguin]

Englund, according to the 9-1-1 recording, explained he had a shotgun, which turned out to be without shells.

“I got the shotgun on them right now,” Englund told the dispatcher.

“Stop or I’ll blow them tires ... Don’t come no closer; get in that car,” Englund’s voice was heard after he and the car he was following stopped.

“Should I blow ‘em?” he asked.

The dispatcher repeatedly told Englund not to shoot the gun, and when she inquired if it was loaded, Englund affirmed it wasn’t

Ummm, I was in CID while in the military. I may not be the worlds best investigator but this whole quote has so many discrepencies in it I would not know what to believe.

Based on his statement the of "get back in that car" the people had exited the vehicle. Why would he then still be wanting to blow the tires if they were not in the vehicle.

Also, if the gun was unloaded as he claimed when asked why was he asking the officer on the line if he should "blow 'em"?

It's also interesting that this man was in contact with the sheriffs office for most of the time, obeying their directives, And yet, it is he that is charged with felonies and he that is taking the heat for a failed LE.

How did you come to that conclussion. The quotes from the conversation with the dispatcher only occured after he had stopped them from what I am reading. I must be missing something.

 

[Trip20]

Ummm, I was in CID while in the military. I may not be the worlds best investigator but this whole quote has so many discrepencies in it I would not know what to believe.

But it appears the quotes you're quoting (boy, that's getting confusing) are statements retrieved from the 9-1-1 tapes. So there is record of what was actually stated. Unless the article is purposly or accidentally misquoting the 9-1-1 tapes...

Based on his statement the of "get back in that car" the people had exited the vehicle. Why would he then still be wanting to blow the tires if they were not in the vehicle.

Englund did not want to shoot the people -- or at least that's a possibility. I know, I know... that's not a popular opinion, but Englund might not be a blood-thirsty farmer.

It's very possible isntead, that Englund threatened to blow the tires hoping this would make the 29yr old man think twice about his next move. With a disabled vehicle, it's hard to get away.

Also, if the gun was unloaded as he claimed when asked why was he asking the officer on the line if he should "blow 'em"?

It's possible he was asking the 29yr old man and not the dispatcher, something like this:

“Stop or I’ll blow them tires ... Don’t come no closer; get in that car,”

Then when the 29yr old man didn't act fast enough, Englund continued:

“Should I blow ‘em?”

Even if Englund were asking the dispatcher, since Englund knew the weapon was empty, I'd interpret that as an 'act' to intimidate the 29yr old man.

I've said to my son before: "Stop jumping on the furniture or I'll paddle your behind." He continues to jump or otherwise test my resolve so I say, "you want your butt paddled?". And that final tone lets him know Dad's not kidding. Might have been a similar exchange.

How did you come to that conclussion. The quotes from the conversation with the dispatcher only occured after he had stopped them from what I am reading. I must be missing something.

This quote from the article leads me to believe he was on the phone with the dispatcher prior to the vehicles stopping, but it's from the defense attorney so...:

Further, Englund went out of his way to help the county; he followed directions from the dispatcher and was never told to stop following the vehicle, Toder said.

 

[Eghad]

As a gun owner know the law.

good intentions pave the road to hell.

So if a cop lies and falsifies and violates the law to get a warrant because his intentions are good I guess some don't have a problem with that.

On the looking at the forest view intentions might be good. If you look past the trees you might see that if you establish that as a norm it will get abused. That's why we have laws that state what is right and wrong. As an armed citizen I believe that we should strive to comply with the law or as a minimum the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. Especially in cases where the crime is petty. Which might mean that we might have to arm ourselves with ideas and imagination and a plan with objectives instead of a gun.

The gun is a last resort for the time when your life/serious injury or that of another might occur.

If we are thinking of the gun as the first resort in minor incidents what does that say?

Houston... the fork is inserted.

 

[OBIWAN]

BOBR

Crucial difference

Someone comes into my house uninvited the assumption is that he is there to commit mayhem and I do not have the luxury of calling the police

Me going outside after someone simply because he is acting suspicious...or I simply think he might be up to no good....now I am looking for trouble

Me chasing him in my car (note that I still only have suspicions) I am no longer just looking for trouble I am running after it

I am quite certain the 911 dispatcher thought he was simply following the other car and providing a location. He will not get far in court trying to pretend he had been deputized

The first rule of a (gun)fight is be somewhere else

The rest of the rules only apply if you can't follow rule #1

This guy started on #2 at least

And ignored one of the big 3 "do not point a weapon at anything you are not willing to destroy"

But I am sure he will use that old tired defense...it wasn't loaded

This guy is just lucky that the thief did not get out of his car with a loaded gun. With no other evidence of theft he could have blown the old guy away and said he thouhgt he was being carjacked

 

[govmule84]

Yeah, respectfully, Antipitas, I'm still here too. This guy still pointed a gun over stuff. That's really what it comes down to for me. It was stuff. If the dude taking gas was on his property, or was not fleeing, maybe things would be different. But once the guy left, call the cops and go to bed. Chasing somebody all over creation with a gun is not how I imagine a responsible member of society behaving over some gasoline.

We pay people to do that, and they have certain protection under the laws that civvies do not.

I still see myself calling the police if it was on my neighbors' property. That's it. End of story. I'd probably stay up in the house and keep an eye on 'em, but that's it. If it was my property, I'd wander outside, weapon LOADED and trained, and start asking questions... especially in an area where cops were not likely to be coming soon. If the guy takes off, fine, get some plate numbers and a description and call the cops. If he stays put when I tell him to, dandy....still get the plates and a description, and call the cops from the cell phone. That's all there is to it, for me.

 

[gc70]

I will admit up front that I am stirring the pot, so to speak, but I think there are a couple of interesting paradoxes in this incident.

Perception or Reality

Not knowing the nuances of local law where the incident took place, but asking a general question: what rules, perception or reality?

The farmer had a perception that he had discovered a thief (although not caught in the act). The reality was that the thief later admitted that he was in fact attempting (unsuccessfully) to steal gas.

The thief had a perception that the farmer was pointing a loaded gun at him. The reality was that the farmer's gun was not loaded.

 

[DonR101395]

I will admit up front that I am stirring the pot, so to speak, but I think there are a couple of interesting paradoxes in this incident.

Perception or Reality

Not knowing the nuances of local law where the incident took place, but asking a general question: what rules, perception or reality?

The farmer had a perception that he had discovered a thief (although not caught in the act). The reality was that the thief later admitted that he was in fact attempting (unsuccessfully) to steal gas.

The thief had a perception that the farmer was pointing a loaded gun at him. The reality was that the farmer's gun was not loaded.

Lending truth to the old adage "Perception is reality"

 

[BobR.]

Obiwan you have made some very good points.

What if the fellow who was killed with his son, instead had gone outside when the stranger was walking towards the SUV, he eventually took, and had shot him then?

Those who wish to find something about this case can, if they try, but I am not at this point because they are being oddly tight lipped about it.
Bob

 

[pipoman]

From what I have seen in this thread many people have not been victims of repeated theft with no satisfaction from law enforcement.

My place of business is in a rural area. My secured building was broken into 3 times in 1 month..followed by 'we will investigate it fully' and no more communication, developments or arrests. After the third time guess what? I had enough. I set up a cot in my building and slept there for over a month. They didn't come back. If they had? Well I had taken up residence there and I would have defended my residence with deadly force if needed. Sorry to those of you who think my property isn't worth killing over, I think it is worth protecting and the thief thought it was worth risking his life and freedom to steal. I have a fairly long rope but when I reach the end I am not going to let go.

As for securing farm fuel tanks good luck with that. They are 150+ gallon barrels on a stand (gravity). If you lock the nozzle (as my father in law did) the thief will simply cut the hose, fill their vehicle and let the rest drain onto the ground. After the police investigate the EPA will pay a visit and require a clean up to their specifications ($8,000). It happened last year.

 

[Al Norris]

Unfortunately pipoman, I know any number of people (and they live in my own town! ) who firmly believe that "stuff" is never worth protecting... Heck, they believe that outside of door locks and other assorted padlocks, you don't have a right to protect anything other than you own life or that of your loved ones.

 

[govmule84]

You know, that's not really fair...

You've totally twisted what I said. I think padlocks are a great place to start. And I am not suggesting stuff if not worth protecting. Please re-read ALL MY POSTS if that wasn't clear.

"Stuff", in my estimation, is not worth taking life over, usually.

I'd protect all my stuff against someone. Would I protect it to the point of killing a man? Maybe, if the situation warranted it. Farmer Englund didn't threaten old boy with a fist or a nine iron across the teeth. He didn't attempt locking stuff up to our knowledge. He didn't put up lighting, he didn't organize kind of a community watch sorta thing. He failed to do any of this, and when the thief left, he PURSUED him. The idea was to stop the theft, and he did that...and then crossed the line, at least for me. I'm fine with all those bad decisions - I don't agree with them, but I support his right to make them. But then...he went straight for the gold. He took his shotgun, unloaded to boot. I'm still good with this...bad idea, but I have no problem with him making it. Here's where this all goes downhill for me. On your land, your property, your castle, what you do with your weapon to any who dare enter is your own private business, and I think you've got very good reason to keep others off. But Farmer Englund was on HIS NEIGHBORS property. But he left and pursued the criminal! Never has a policeman, dispatcher, or any other government official EVER told me to pursue a criminal. Not once. I'm betting it's reeeeeeal rare. To just take it on without being told seems to me to be a great assumption. I've kept my side of this pretty clean, but since some here don't seem to see the stupidity in this, let me point it out.

If you are going to play Johnny Law, you deserve ANYTHING that happens to you. Does it suck? Yes. But those are the rules we play by for the most part in this country. If you don't like 'em, change 'em. If you can't change 'em, leave.

And an unloaded weapon? I don't take my sidearms as lightly as Ol' Farmer E. I don't take my gun out unless I need some deadly force, and it sure ain't deadly without lead in the end of the barrel.

I protect ME and MINE. On MY turf. The whole rest of the country is up to all sorts of various local law enforcement.

I think his heart was in the right place. I sincerely do. However, discretion is still the better part of valor. The man has no legal leg to stand on in my mind. Odds are ol' boy is probably Christian, and I think he did the right thing morally, for him, and for me too. However, legally, he really came up short.

Additionally, I worked at a salvage yard for a good long while, with those same tanks, Pipo. A trip to the hardware store will get you a valve with a throw lever that screws onto the threads on the tank. It locks. Cut the hose all day long, and watch the shiny little pice of polished stainless that blocks the flow of fuel. Any lock is merely a device to slow down potential miscreants, but you can slow 'em down a lot better if you chuck some thought behind the effort.

 

[ibfestus]

Hey, I'm late on this but this guy was WRONG!

Before you use deadly force, most States require you to "retreat." This guy violated this requirement.

It doesn't have to make sense, it is the LAW.

Missouri law, (for example) says that if a BG is breaking down your front door, you can shoot him dead, however... BIG however. HOWEVER once the BG gets inside, he can raid your fridge and sit down at your table and enjoy your food. Your only legal option at this time is to retreat to your bedroom and call 911.

It doesn't have to make sense, it is the LAW.