Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Sat Apr 27, 2024 3:49 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 Use of deadly force 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:21 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:57 am
Posts: 818
Location: Apple Valley, MN
jaysong wrote:
Five Seven wrote:
Question, I am a stroke survivor, I can walk, but not run, and my balance is not good. For me to turn and attempt to retreat could definatly be more endangering for me. How would the law, as in, retreat if possible, view the fact that I don't turn my back and try to run?


Unfortunately or fortunately the law will not view any facts. That is left up to a jury. And lets not kid ourselves, it will NOT be a jury of our peers.


And it would probably depend on your ability to demonstrate that retreat would be more dangerous to a jury. Basically can you demonstrate yourself to be a pathetic hollow shell of a man?

It probably goes without saying that ego has no place in a self-defense situation....only self-preservation.

_________________
http://www.eckernet.com
My mind is like a steel trap - rusty and illegal in 37 states.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Does retreat increase the risk of Great Bodily Harm
PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 5:06 pm 
First-time poster

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:43 am
Posts: 1
Location: SW MSP Suburb
I had the carry class last week and a similiar scenario came up.
Because I ripped my achilles, I can't walk very fast.
My story would be that I was near the back of the store, but going out the back exit would increase my chance of being shot. Since shots were already fired, I am not taking unreasonable chances. A good instructor once said: As the defendant, you don't need to convince everyone in the Grand Jury, only get a few others to agree your actions were reasonable.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:43 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:42 pm
Posts: 270
Location: Waconia,Mn.
It is good to talk through some "what if" scenarios, but remember that EVERY situation will be different and you will probably not have all the facts.
Remember the guy who was getting car-jacked at gunpoint, took the gun away from the attacker [cause its so easy :? ] and then was shot by police who thought he was the perp because he now had the gun pointed at the bad guy?
Bad stuff happens in a gunfight, make REALLY sure you want to intervene before you do.

Lethal force is allowed in defense of another [does not need to be a relative] but is often dicey.

_________________
David ,Molon Labe!
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." --Col. Jeff Cooper


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:14 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:24 pm
Posts: 471
Location: 12 miles east of Lake Wobegon
Sit in the lotus position and meditate upon this mantra:

"I am not a cop."

After internalizing this message, light incense, unleash patchoulli oil, cross legs the other way, and meditate with this message as The Thing:

"This ain't Hollywood."

I believe that the phrase cops like to use for made-for-Hollywood interventions like this is "tactically untenable." If you were a cop, you would consider trying to stop an armed robbery without something like 4:1 superiority in numbers (with people who have trained together and who are in constant communication with each other) to be tactically untenable and therefore a candidate for a "tactical disengagement," i.e. a retreat.

Save the hero shit for the guy with the MP5 mowing down kids at the amusement attraction formerly known as Camp Snoopy. Anything less isn't worth it.

I've known cops, I've known feds, and even the paranoid ones who carry every living minute won't intervene in someone else's fight on their day off.

You shouldn't either.

The important thing to remember is that justice comes to the doers in the end. If they don't get busted or killed on this crime, they will on the next one, or the next, or one after that which they didn't actually do themselves. And even if it doesn't, without getting into an argument over theology, let's just say that they'll ultimately have to answer to someone else, or at least live with who they are.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:42 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:00 pm
Posts: 373
MostlyHarmless wrote:
...Save the hero shit for the guy with the MP5 mowing down kids at the amusement attraction formerly known as Camp Snoopy. Anything less isn't worth it.



Does he have to have an MP5? :lol:


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:11 pm 
Member

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:05 pm
Posts: 33
Location: Lakeville
plblark wrote:
4) No lesser force would suffice. If you can stop a threat with something less than deadly force, you are required to. You are required to stop using force as soon as the threat stops. The condition of the victim and the attacker matter. You are not required to try other methods before using deadly force, you are simply expected to consider alternatives, and to only use deadly force when no other option is sufficient

What if someone were carrying a pistol AND a Tazer (I just so happen to have both)?. In other words, if one is forced to defend oneself and uses the firearm rather than the "lesser" weapon, what legal liability does one have since they had ine their posession a "lesser" weapon?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:02 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:37 pm
Posts: 1757
Location: Whittier
Would the lesser force have been sufficient to stop the attack? In a one on one, the jury might have problems with your health. If your defensive situation involved multiple attackers and the tasers slow reload time would get you killed, you'd probably be okay. The thing to remember is, it will be a jury & juries are more fickle than my 7th grade girlfriend was. :wink:

_________________
Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a
lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become
a law unto himself; it invites anarchy .” Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:05 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
PhoneBoy wrote:
What if someone were carrying a pistol AND a Tazer (I just so happen to have both)?. In other words, if one is forced to defend oneself and uses the firearm rather than the "lesser" weapon, what legal liability does one have since they had ine their posession a "lesser" weapon?


plblark wrote:
You are not required to try other methods before using deadly force, you are simply expected to consider alternatives, and to only use deadly force when no other option is sufficient



That is something you would assert through your attorney with expert witnesses and a lot of examples for the jury IMnsHO.

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:22 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:27 pm
Posts: 144
Great thread for a refresher on use of force-- Thanks folks!

_________________
K. Paul
Semper Fi


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:09 pm 
Member

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:05 pm
Posts: 33
Location: Lakeville
Quote:
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when
necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the
actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in
the actor's place of abode.


Anyone know the legal definition of "abode"? Does it include say, a second home? cabin? camper? owned commercial space? an office?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:36 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:37 pm
Posts: 1757
Location: Whittier
abode = where you keep your boxers and toothbrush.


(granted I used to keep a toothbrush and toothpaste at the office, along with a cooking pot, bowl, mug, spatula, spoon and assorted dry goods)

_________________
Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a
lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become
a law unto himself; it invites anarchy .” Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:31 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:45 pm
Posts: 353
Location: Minnetonka
Macx wrote:
abode = where you keep your boxers and toothbrush.


(granted I used to keep a toothbrush and toothpaste at the office, along with a cooking pot, bowl, mug, spatula, spoon and assorted dry goods)


Or according to some Democrat judges, the park bench that you sleep on.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:56 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
PhoneBoy wrote:
Anyone know the legal definition of "abode"? Does it include say, a second home? cabin? camper? owned commercial space? an office?


It's where you live, even for one day. Your house, apartment, hotel room, camping tent, or RV (while parked).

On the other hand, it is not a place where you are having a sleepover (your girlfriend's, your folks', your kids') -- that's their abode.

It's not your garage, your yard, your porch -- just the living portion of your abode.

It's not your office.

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:45 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:02 pm
Posts: 571
Check out http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/vi ... hp?t=10564 for why you should not get involved unless you <I>absolutely</i> know what is going on . . .

_________________
If the Government does not obey the Constitution, then what is Treason? -- Unknown


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:33 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:27 pm
Posts: 144
rtk wrote:
Macx wrote:
abode = where you keep your boxers and toothbrush.


(granted I used to keep a toothbrush and toothpaste at the office, along with a cooking pot, bowl, mug, spatula, spoon and assorted dry goods)


Or according to some Democrat judges, the park bench that you sleep on.


To funny - but true--

_________________
K. Paul
Semper Fi


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 160 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group