A good dad with a gun ends a potential mass shooting at a McDonald’s:
The unidentified father was leaving the restaurant around 10:45 p.m. on Sunday when the suspect walked into the Birmingham, Alabama fast-food restaurant and started shooting.
The father then opened fire on the gunman, fatally wounding him. The dad and one of his children were also struck and suffered non-life threatening injuries.
Authorities do not know if the gunman was intending to rob the store or targeting a particular person. The father will not be facing charges, WBRC reports.
The motive – robbery, or a gang execution – isn’t clear at the moment to investigators…
And, thanks to one good guy with a gun, it doesn’t have to be.
Alabama is a red state. Under Alabama law, the hero had the legal right to Stand His Ground to defend himself and his family. He will not be charged with a crime.
Minnesota is a blue state. Under Minnesota law, the hero and the other victims all have a legal duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. In Minnesota, the man who saved all those lives might be charged with murder for shooting the robber. He could be forced to hire a lawyer to defend his decision to stand and fight instead of run away and hide. The cost could ruin him, even if he’s eventually vindicated.
Incidents like this are why we need Stand Your Ground in Minnesota.
Democrats uniformly oppose Stand Your Ground. Vote wisely.
“The motive – robbery, or a gang execution – isn’t clear at the moment to investigators…”
Whew. It’s McDonalds.
I was worried you were describing my last Burger King.
JD – but what if the hero was merely covering the retreat of the other diners?
“And, thanks to one good guy with a gun, it doesn’t have to be.”
This is non-Bergandian. ” It doesn’t have to be…”
It gets weary.
Cue John Lennon: “we may hope for a dreamer…but I’m not the only one..”.
Night Writer – I don’t do criminal defense, but as I understand Minnesota law, in the situation you describe, the shooter loses.
You can use deadly force if your own life is in danger and you cannot safely retreat. Not the situation you describe.
You can use deadly force if another person’s life is in danger and that other person cannot safely retreat. Again, not the situation you describe. If the other person is retreating, you shouldn’t be shooting.
In the situation you describe, the Prosecution would argue to the judge that you shouldn’t be allowed to tell the jury you acted in Defense of Others. If the judge agrees, you won’t be allowed to put in a defense. You’ll be convicted as a murderer.
That’s what makes Duty to Retreat so risky for civic minded citizens. That’s why Stand Your Ground is so important.
Regarding the scenario Joe describes, one wonders if a clever lawyer could get away with arguing “I was trying to retreat, but my bum knee acted up and I couldn’t get past all the other people running for the door.”
Bikebubba, who is the clever lawyer arguing to? Not the jury.
In Minnesota, self-defense is a PERMISSIVE defense, meaning the judge must give the Defendant permission to assert it during the trial. It is not an ABSOLUTE defense that you are automatically entitled to assert, such as lack of jurisdiction or statute of limitations.
The clever lawyer would be arguing trick knees to a judge, quite possibly a former Prosecuting Attorney appointed to the bench by Mark Dayton. No judge in that situation would admit to being biased against armed citizens. No armed citizen in that situation would doubt the bias exists.
The solution is for Minnesota to join the majority of other states in permitting its citizens to defend themselves wherever they might lawfully be standing when attacked. That’s why Stand Your Ground is so important.