I think I would be content to let this guy plow his car into anything but me or another bystander.

Dave,
Glad to hear you would pull your gun after some little kid was run over. I have a feeling though that most defense situations are as ambiguous as this one(judging by what board members have reported here) and if you wait for all ambiguity to vanish then the bad stuff will have already happened. Here is a link to the rest of the story at The Post-Bulletin. Note the comments are now heavily in our guy's favor.

http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=2&a=351110

Well, so much for being a hero. Being recognized for doing the "right thing" must be a really great feeling.

Good data & thanks for sharing. Two guys, knife & pipe?? My .45 would be short four rounds.

Jeez, Suited, I'm not a junior G-Man after all...

Edited to add:



And for this I should use my handgun to threaten someone's life?

What if I produce my handgun and he decides he's not interested?

What has to happen for me to shoot him? Should I kill this guy for what would otherwise be a misdemeanor offense (as charged), even if it is for the childrens?

Please.

+1

I'm with you except for the last. Assuming -- and it's just an assumption; I don't think it's the case -- it was reasonable and lawful to threaten the guy to keep him there for the cops, if he tries to leave, the obvious (and reasonable) thing to do is, well, not shoot him. If you take your gun out to threaten somebody in order to effect a citizens arrest (and, again, I'm advocating against that in almost any conceivable circumstance), you're not legally or morally obligated to actually, well, shoot him if he calls your bluff.

The more I hear about this one, the more it sounds to me like a situation where the use of a cell phone was the right thing to do.

I think that statement is true in about 99.99% of the cases most of us encounter.

Yup. There's lots more speed dialing problems in the world than shooting problems.

Register Of ActionsCase No. 55-CR-08-5027State of Minnesota vs Near F. Kouath §
§
§
§
§
Case Type: Crim/Traf Mandatory
Date Filed: 05/21/2008
Location: Olmsted


Party Information Lead Attorneys
Defendant Kouath, Near F.
Rochester, MN 55901


Jurisdiction State of Minnesota

Charge InformationCharges: Kouath, Near F. Statute Level Date
1. Traffic Regulation-Uninsured Vehicle-Owner Violation 169.797.2 Misdemeanor 05/19/2008
2. Drivers License-Driving Without a Valid License or Vehicle Class/Type; Multiple Licenses Prohibited 171.02.1 Misdemeanor 05/19/2008
Events & Orders of the Court DISPOSITIONS
06/11/2008 Plea (Judicial Officer: Lund, Kevin A.)

1. Traffic Regulation-Uninsured Vehicle-Owner Violation
Guilty
2. Drivers License-Driving Without a Valid License or Vehicle Class/Type; Multiple Licenses Prohibited
Guilty
06/11/2008 Disposition (Judicial Officer: Lund, Kevin A.)

1. Traffic Regulation-Uninsured Vehicle-Owner Violation
Adjudication withheld
2. Drivers License-Driving Without a Valid License or Vehicle Class/Type; Multiple Licenses Prohibited
Adjudication withheld
06/11/2008 Continued (Judicial Officer: Lund, Kevin A.)

1. Traffic Regulation-Uninsured Vehicle-Owner Violation
Probation - Adult:
Type: Probation to the Court
Agency: Olmsted District Court
Term of 1 Yr
06/11/2008 - 06/11/2009
Status: Active 06/11/2008

Condition - Adult:
1. No driver license violations, 06/11/2008, Active 06/11/2008
2. No driving without insurance, 06/11/2008, Active 06/11/2008
3. No moving violations, 06/11/2008, Active 06/11/2008

Fees - Adult: (Grand Total: $200.00)
Due 04/01/2009
Fine: $0.00
Fees: (Fees Total: $200.00)
Additional Court Costs: $200.00
Comment: pay at the rate of $20.00 each month beginning July 1, 2008.


2. Drivers License-Driving Without a Valid License or Vehicle Class/Type; Multiple Licenses Prohibited
Probation - Adult:
Type: Probation to the Court
Agency: Olmsted District Court
Term of 1 Yr
06/11/2008 - 06/11/2009
Status: Active 06/11/2008

Condition - Adult:
1. No driver license violations, 06/11/2008, Active 06/11/2008
2. No driving without insurance, 06/11/2008, Active 06/11/2008
3. No moving violations, 06/11/2008, Active 06/11/2008

Fees - Adult: (Grand Total: $200.00)
Due 04/01/2009
Fine: $0.00
Fees: (Fees Total: $200.00)
Additional Court Costs: $200.00
Comment: pay at the rate of $20.00 each month beginning July 1, 2008.



OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS
06/11/2008 Arraignment (1:00 PM) (Judicial Officer Lund, Kevin A.) Result: Held
Financial Information
Defendant Kouath, Near F.
Total Financial Assessment 200.00
Total Payments and Credits 200.00
Balance Due as of 07/11/2008 0.00

06/11/2008 Transaction Assessment 200.00
06/11/2008 Counter Payment Receipt # 0055-2008-012660 Kouath, Near F. (200.00)

This lists his arraignment for 7/29/08, however Reckless driving is a misdemeanor, not a petty?

Register Of ActionsCase No. 55-CR-08-6617State of Minnesota vs Near F Kouath §
§
§
§
§
Case Type: Crim/Traf Mandatory
Date Filed: 07/08/2008
Location: Olmsted


Party Information Lead Attorneys
Defendant Kouath, Near F
Rochester, MN 55901


Jurisdiction State of Minnesota

Charge InformationCharges: Kouath, Near F Statute Level Date
1. Traffic - Reckless driving; Drives with willful or wanton disregard for safety 169.13.1(a) Petty Misdemeanor 07/04/2008
Events & Orders of the Court OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS
07/29/2008 Arraignment (1:00 PM) (Judicial Officer Williamson, Jodi L.)

I was under the impression that careless driving, was a petty, and reckless was a gross misdemeanor.

Weird.

So if you believe Rose's account of what happened, you guys would have him call the cops on his cell phone even if you thought someone was hit and may be run over again? Maybe I am reading the story wrong, as I do not know what actually happened. If I thought someone was run over and possibly dying I might have done the same as Rose.

If I think somebody even might have been run over, the first thing I want to do is get the pros on it. All I got is First Aid and ancient CPR training; I'm not an EMT, much less ER MD, and while I've usually got a first aid kit reasonably handy, if I'm stuck directly handling somebody who has been run over, keeping them immobilized and keeping the airway open is about the limit of what I'm comfortable with. Doing that while trying to hold a crazy driver at gunpoint? Huh?

(I think Rose is telling a very good -- and possibly even honest -- story, but I doubt it'll go well for him. "So, Mr. Rose, you thought you saw the victim [that's what the prosecutor is going to call him] hit somebody with his car before he slammed into a tree, and instead of going over to assist the injured person that you claim that you thought that you saw, you whipped out our gun and went to confront the victim? Just who is it that you think you're going to fool? Withdrawn, Your Honor.")

And, as I go over in every class, folks' perceptions are not always accurate; consider the Patton story.

Even if I'm sure -- and even if I'm right -- that somebody is dying, arresting the perp at gunpoint isn't something I'm volunteering to do.

Now, if I think there's somebody in the area who is "about to put the car in reverse and 'go nuts'", I'm not at all sure how waving a gun at him is supposed to calm him down.

And, if it doesn't, what then?

Other folks get to do what they want; me, I'm going to get solid, extremely expendable things -- trees, say, or Ken Jones or Jeremy Poole -- between the guy who I think is about to "go nuts" and me and my family, and then get on the phone to 911.

If society would like me to be more aggressive, I'll take a guarantee of legal immunity from both civil and criminal prosecution, body armor, and a paycheck . . . and then I'll think about it.