In MN. wouldn't he go to Jail?

[John S.]

http://2nd-amendment.littlethings.com/g ... nservative

Just sayin?

[Ghost]

Wouldn't he have been stopping a felony in progress?

[Uffdaphil]

Why would you think that OP? Kinda tough to form a cogent response to "Just sayin?"

It seems cut and dried to me. BG is threatening the life of the woman by driving into traffic with her on the hood.

[John S.]

Yes, but, in MN isn't YOUR life or Families life being threatened the only time you can use deadly force? Seems kinda iffy to me. Just like if you are in a store being robbed at gunpoint. If the guns not pointed at you, and you intervene, you COULD, (not WOULD), be arrested. That's the way I understood it anyway. Like MN laws are pretty lax on exactly when you can intervene, at least in a court of law it seems so?

[95thbonehead]

It is not iffy at all. Until last December I lived in Atlanta. In fact I commute back there every weekend to see the wife and kids. Ga law is very clear and he was well within his rights to use his firearm.

[MJY65]

Yes, but, in MN isn't YOUR life or Families life being threatened the only time you can use deadly force?

I don't think that is true. On the other hand, putting yourself in potential legal peril for someone other than yourself or a family member may take a bit more consideration.

[John S.]

Yes, but, in MN isn't YOUR life or Families life being threatened the only time you can use deadly force?

I don't think that is true. On the other hand, putting yourself in potential legal peril for someone other than yourself or a family member may take a bit more consideration.

THAT's exactly what I mean. In MN. You could serve time. Hell there's a guy in Florida doing like 20 to life for fireing into his own wall, in his own house, to scare his daughters boyfriend. He told him gtfo or the next shot will be between your eyes. He's old enough, if he does 20 years prolly won't come out alive.

[Ghost]

Yes, but, in MN isn't YOUR life or Families life being threatened the only time you can use deadly force?

I don't think that is true. On the other hand, putting yourself in potential legal peril for someone other than yourself or a family member may take a bit more consideration.

THAT's exactly what I mean. In MN. You could serve time. Hell there's a guy in Florida doing like 20 to life for fireing into his own wall, in his own house, to scare his daughters boyfriend. He told him gtfo or the next shot will be between your eyes. He's old enough, if he does 20 years prolly won't come out alive.

I'm not seeing how threatening somebody and shooting into a wall to scare them is at all the same.

[MJY65]

Yes, but, in MN isn't YOUR life or Families life being threatened the only time you can use deadly force?

I don't think that is true. On the other hand, putting yourself in potential legal peril for someone other than yourself or a family member may take a bit more consideration.

THAT's exactly what I mean. In MN. You could serve time. Hell there's a guy in Florida doing like 20 to life for fireing into his own wall, in his own house, to scare his daughters boyfriend. He told him gtfo or the next shot will be between your eyes. He's old enough, if he does 20 years prolly won't come out alive.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post. I thought you were saying it was legally different if it was a family member. It is not. The same laws apply and nothing is certain in a shooting. Whether you choose to accept that risk on behalf of a stranger is a personal judgment, not a legal distinction.

[John S.]

It's not the same, but, I'd be willing to bet he'd spend jail time in MN for doing what he did in GA. That's all.

[Holland&Holland]

It's not the same, but, I'd be willing to bet he'd spend jail time in MN for doing what he did in GA. That's all.

We will never know.

[Uffdaphil]

In Minnesota you must meet four criteria to be legally justified in using Lethal Force:

1. You must reasonably be in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death to yourself or another.
2. You must be a reluctant participant.
3. You must have no reasonable means of retreat.
4. No lesser force would suffice, lethal force was a last resort
http://www.minnesotaccw.com/blog/legal- ... orce-in-mn

1. "Or another"
2. The jacker was the aggressor.
3. Woman was hanging on for dear life. Retreating would not remove threat.
4. Woman at risk of death any second.

Cite some reasons why the guy would go to jail in MN, but not GA. Just cuz we are a libtard state doesn't change the law.

[John S.]

In Minnesota you must meet four criteria to be legally justified in using Lethal Force:

1. You must reasonably be in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death to yourself or another.
2. You must be a reluctant participant.
3. You must have no reasonable means of retreat.
4. No lesser force would suffice, lethal force was a last resort
http://www.minnesotaccw.com/blog/legal- ... orce-in-mn

1. "Or another"
2. The jacker was the aggressor.
3. Woman was hanging on for dear life. Retreating would not remove threat.
4. Woman at risk of death any second.

Cite some reasons why the guy would go to jail in MN, but not GA. Just cuz we are a libtard state doesn't change the law.

Hey, I totally agree now that you so common senseily ( is that a word?) Wrote that. Makes total sense now. I was kinda thinking about how if someone drives their car at you while your walking and tries to run you over, that, you can use deadly force, UNTILL the person, drives past you, then, you have to quit shooting. THAT makes absolutely no sense to me, just because, the bastards going to try something again, wouldn't you think? Why not stop the idiot NOW? Makes no sense but, that is our law.......................

[Uffdaphil]

Yeah, try to run down a cop and see if he stops firing after your car passes. Perk of the badge I guess.

Suppose a guy shoots at me from 10 feet, then turns and starts running away. I doubt I can get away with shooting him in the back even though he may turn and fire again any second. And if I try running Away he can shoot me in the back. Common senselly (love that) the BG is still a threat until he is out of range as long as he has a gun in hand. In my book you shoot at me, your only choices should be throw down the gun or get shot at. Period.

[LarryP]

IMO number 2 & 3 wasn't met- The guy could retreated and called police. He wasn't directly involved. In our state, I bet they guy would have to defend himself in court $$$$$ Just my opinion. I can see the "Dirty Harry" card being played by a gun hating city attorney. And the crooks family would sue him for something. Our nature nowdays.

In Minnesota you must meet four criteria to be legally justified in using Lethal Force:

1. You must reasonably be in immediate fear of great bodily harm or death to yourself or another.
2. You must be a reluctant participant.
3. You must have no reasonable means of retreat.
4. No lesser force would suffice, lethal force was a last resort
http://www.minnesotaccw.com/blog/legal- ... orce-in-mn

1. "Or another"
2. The jacker was the aggressor.
3. Woman was hanging on for dear life. Retreating would not remove threat.
4. Woman at risk of death any second.

Cite some reasons why the guy would go to jail in MN, but not GA. Just cuz we are a libtard state doesn't change the law.