We Should Be Careful With Our Choice of Words!

D

Doublea A

New member
Hello fellow firearm enthusiasts, the below incident occured about 5 miles from home and I'm a little bit concern by what the armed citizen said he did.

Let me get this out of the way I don't feel sorry for the criminal and he deserved what he got.

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/132311553.html

My only concern is what the armed citizen said "Officers responded and found Evanovich mortally wounded. Then they were approached by another man outside the grocery store who said he witnessed the robbery, chased Evanovich behind the restaurant and shot him during a confrontation. The man then directed officers to the weapon"

I hope and pray that he is not charged for this incident but an over zealous gun control prosecutor can exploit his comments by saying that he became the perpetrator by chasing and confronting the dirt bag.

Am I reading this wrong? I want to know what your thoughts are.

Thanks
 
I would say it depends on MNs laws, if they are indeed as is quoted:

"Andrew Rothman, a Twin Cities firearms trainer and vice president of the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, said Friday that if the events unfolded as the armed citizen described, "the permit holder acted appropriately. Chasing the mugger to recover the purse or to effect a citizen's arrest is permitted by law.""

Then hopefully he should be ok
 
To address the OP's concerns: Most people with experience in such matters advise that, if you believe your shoot to be justified, you should say enough to the investigating officers so that they can secure evidence that corroborates your version of events, then ask for legal counsel. From the report you posted, it doesn't seem that the shooter went too far beyond that, since it kind of reads that they found both his weapon and the BG's weapon promptly as a result of his comments.

Like you, I hope he is OK legally. If he had not come forward, or especially if he had left the scene, it might have looked worse and been harder to argue for a justified shooting.
 
I think he probably will not be charged, legal or illegal. Here in Illinois store clerks chase robbers out and cap them all the time without being charged. This does open the guy up to a wrongful death suit from the bad guys family though and TRUST ME the likely welfare grubbing relatives will easily find an ambulance chaser lawyer to represent them.
 
Local news outlets, both print and broadcast, have been highly inaccurate (and somewhat inflammatory) in their reporting the shooting. The Mpls StarTribune is well known to be anti-firearms, and to take a Liberal stance on Political and Social issues. A complete and accurate accounting of the incident has not yet been made public.

The exact statements (and identity) of the CW permit holder have yet to be released by the Minneapolis Police.
 
Local news outlets, both print and broadcast, have been highly inaccurate (and somewhat inflammatory) in their reporting the shooting.
Click to expand...

If all the news outlets are acting in concert, how do you have access to information contrary to what they are reporting? Do you know some of the people involved?
 
I tried very hard to put myself in the situation. After considering all my options, I would have been satisfied to stop the assault on the woman being pistol whipped, but never would have run after the perp. Cell phones are for calling 911 and I would have called in a description and a direction which he ran. I would have been happy to have made an ID in a lineup.

Like most of you, I sincerely hope the shooter walks away from this unscathed but he certainly has opened up a can of worms for himself.

Many years ago, when I obtained my first carry permit, I was required to attend 16 hours of training. A judge came in to speak with the class and instructed us as to what a gun permit allows and will not allow. Having a gun permit does not make one a LEO. I always carried that one point with me and I try to pass it on to all my students.

Yes, it certainly is OK to intercede to save an innocent life but how far does one go after that? I think the moral obligation ends when the attack ends. Of course, if the attacker points a gun at you, you are left with no choice but to defend yourself...deadly force answered with deadly force. But, to chase someone down and then shoot them....the can of worms is now open.
 
To 45Gunner

I totally agree that running after the scum bag could open a can of worms. I remember when I was taking my CCW class, the instructor told us we should be careful of acting like law enforcement.

I would have intervene during the attack but once the criminal started running away I will not pursue him. I would only pursue them if the victim is a family member or a friend (this is where my loyalty and responsibility are).

Strangers are optional in my case because I don't know the whole story as it could be a drug deal gone badly etc. While it is unfortunate for the victim, it is their responsibility to protect themselves as well.

We shouldn't outsource our security to anybody else and not even law enforcement.
 
Is it entirely wrong to pursue a felon fleeing on foot to keep track of his whereabouts? :confused:

Illegal? stupid? (well, maybe....)

I don't know. given the heat of the moment, I might follow the guy. Not to hunt him down, simply to track him. If he turned and fired at me, that turns the situation into a clear cut case of saving my own life at that point, and I would kill him if possible, to stop the attack with certainty.

Right, wrong, letter of the law, meaning of the law, they are all moot points. What matters is what happens when the facts and the rhetoric are placed before a jury of people, and at least a few peopl on that jury are going to be just as dumb as a pile of bricks. Will they see me starting the hue and cry, as this would have been referred to in earlier times as vigilante justice, or will they show a little sense, and recognize it as a civic duty?

In the past, in some societies, I would have been flogged if I chose not to start hue and cry, and engage in pursuit of a criminal caught in the act.

One difference between me and a police helicopter is that I don't need to find the guy before I can follow him. another difference is that I put my own life in danger to do so. will a public be grateful for my contribution to public safety? Don't bet on it.
 
Ehhhh, I'm not going to be chasing scumbags down a dark street......not unless I have my Chrome Deagle in one hand and there's a 12' fence across the dark ally that will allow me to shoot the bad guy multiple times while he is trying to scale the fence.


No, I'm not serious.:D
 
I know that tactic. After you actually do this grinning like an idiot all the while, counting the stacked up bodies with glee, running back to a phone booth dancing and yelling "WOO HOOO!" all the doggoned way, then, you can show this post to the prosecuting attorney to prove what a peaceful guy you really are.

"honest injun, man, I didn't mean to kill that whole pile of people, I'm actually a pacifist! I was pointing the gun to scare them, and it just started going off! Here, look at what I said on the internet!"

;)
 
this is my answer to the original post's question

actually, as stated in the article, the CCWer was permitted by law to chase the suspect. wow, this story is intense. I bet this guy's adrenaline is still going. The fact about the perp's record, still being on probation for convictions of similar crimes, and the fact that he assaulted a woman and there were witnesses all helps. The man also did the right thing and probably had someone call police. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes, but I tip my hat. If he can shutup, lawyer up, and let the DA do their thing I don't think charges will be brought(based on the little info I have). I mean if the robber had a weapon and he pointed it at the CCWer then he will be in the clear...deadmen don't talk, sorry about the cliche but it seems to fit the bill here. There were no witnesses to the final shooting, and it seems believable(though again, we have little from the article even though it is showing the puzzle pieces fitting together).
 
Dirty Hairy would be proud

thank you for the followup article, Doublea A. It was very informative. Going back to my original post, I would Not want to be in this man's shoes still. That doesn't change the fact that this 'movie moment' from his vehicle was intense.I mean this guy gets the 2011 balls award in my book.
 
Last edited:
I'm on the fence about whether he should or shouldn't of pursued. My personal belief is that if you are able bodied, able minded and stumble upon something like this then by all means go for it. The only difference between a armed citizen and Le/military is one has a uniform (and jurisdiction..). The mind and action if taken are all one in the same. I'm not implying that it's an obligation to anyone, but if I see someone being wrongfully injured or harmed by someone else, I feel as though I would have my own moral obligation to step in even if it may cause harm or legal action to myself. By no means am I saying I am a vigilante, but I don't think I could live with myself witnessing that and letting it go.

The exception is if stepping in would escalate te situation to a point of getting many others harmed, or if family was around and their well being would be in immediate danger. There are so many what if's or game changers, but I feel this guy had an idea of what he was doing and hopefully thought out other consequences of his actions. And if that's the case, I support what he did.
 
I would have been satisfied to stop the assault on the woman being pistol whipped
Click to expand...

My immediate instinct would be to run him down and give him some of the same.

Higher brain functions dictate a different response, but that would be what would be deserved.

the CCWer was permitted by law to chase the suspect
Click to expand...

Definitely helpful to have the law for backup. In Ohio it is legal to use deadly force to prevent a serious felony in progress, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it would be entirely legal to run the perp down to do it.
 
I teach that once the immediate threat is stopped, you may no longer use deadly force on the bad guy. When he ran off, the immediate threat was over.

I hope it all works out well for the guy. But in some states, his actions could open him up for criminal prosecution.

Just my opinion.
 
A couple of interesting points about this case. The family of the deceased pistol-whipping scumbag advocated strenuously for the CCW to be prosecuted. They even created a Facebook page called "Justice for Darren Evanovich" which was ultimately shut down when it ended up having more AR15.com members than family members - and intially the goal of the site was to see the CCW prosecuted. After some "blowback" the website shifted to being more of a memorial for the scumbag/trolling for AR15.com. Fortunately, the DA declined to prosecute, despite the pressure and some truly one-sided reporting by the Star-Tribune.

A second interesting point is that the scumbag's sister (who called 911) was present at the scene and later arrested by police on suspicion of being the mastermind in a series of robberies. The old saying about there is always another one out there was true in this case, she just didn't show up as an immediate threat; but rather as a hostile witness. One more thing to keep in mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top