We don’t really know what happened behind the Cub store near Lake and Hiawatha last week, in an incident in which one Darren Evanovich allegedly robbed a woman in the parking lot, pistol-whipped her, was chased by a Good Samaritan, allegedly drew a pistol on the samaritan, and was in turn shot dead. I published the details that were available in the media last week; not much else seems to have come up, other than the fact that the Minneapolis Police declined to arrest the man – generally a good sign – and the Hennepin County Attorney’s office is evaluating whether or not to prosecute.
This didn’t stop Channel Five’s Tim Sherno from running a – I’m going to pick my words carefully – bizarre piece interviewing the sisters of the victim in the shooting.
Evanovich’s sisters say they know what their brother was doing was wrong, but they say the police should have handled the response because they’re trained to deal with crimes in progress.
I heard the audio from this piece – which is, sadly, not online at the moment. And I almost drove off the road.
What do you think police “training” tells a cop to do, Evanovich sisters, when he sees a guy with a gun?
They are trained to order him to drop it and, if he doesn’t, shoot him without a lot of further ado!
Johnita Beal says the witness should have dialed 911, “Police could have been easily contacted, easily, and my brother would have been behind bars, or something like that, but no, he’s gone now.”
That is true.
And he’d have gotten away, since the police simply can’t be everywhere, and he’d have gone on to pistol-whip (allegedly) some other woman sooner than later.
But what about your brother, Madames Beal and Evanovich? Leaving aside the robbery that started the incident – your brother is dead because he allegedly drew a gun on a guy who was chasing him for robbing and beating an old woman. Your brother could easily have killed the other man. That – if the story checks out – is why it’s called “self-defense”.
Have you thought about that?
I’m sorry for your loss. A brother is a terrible thing to lose. But he might have made some different choices, under the circumstances – we see this, right?
And all the rest of you would-be robbers out there – if this story pans out, and the case is ruled justifiable (I’m crossing my fingers), does it give you any pause about, oh, I dunno, attacking and robbing people, and waving guns in the faces of people who lift a finger to stop you?
UPDATE: Rick Kupchella’s “Bring Me The News” spoke with Evanovich’s mother, who is claiming he was “the victim”.
Two stories doesn’t make a trend – it’s possible that two simultaneous, produced, sympathetic stories just happened to appear at almost the same time.
I don’t believe it, but it’s possible.
If you see any other media coverage, let me know. Two is a coincidence. Three’s a campaign.
I’ll bet a brand-new nickel they’re already being solicited to sue the GS for wickedly killing their poor, innocent brother, an alter boy who was on his way to confession to turn his life around.
Maybe we should take a page from the Progressive playbook. Instead of asking for a sensible, reasonable law such as Stand Your Ground, we should be demanding the return of the Bounty system – honest citizens could earn hard cash for killing crooks and the streets would be safer, too. What, too extreme? Ok, fine, we’ll meet you half-way, pass Stand Your Ground.
Yes this poor fellow was a victim. And if he had somehow gotten into the parking lot of one of our local TV stations, past the security guards and closed circuit cameras to rob and beat Rick Kupchella or Tim Sherno he would still have been a victim. We’ve always been at war with Oceana.
I generally try to cut the family of the deceased a break. First, they’re not the place you’d go to find objectivity and, second, you’re catching them at a bad time emotionally. I’m more amused at the dispassionate bystander, like Amnesty International wanting an inquiry on the shooting of Gaddafi, who doesn’t quite get that we don’t care.
Earsall,
“I generally try to cut the family of the deceased a break. First, they’re not the place you’d go to find objectivity and, second, you’re catching them at a bad time emotionally”
I know that.
And so do experienced reporters like Kupchella and Sherno.
That’s what got my attention. Family defends brother = dog bites man. Experienced reporters cover non-news? Man licks dog.
Experienced reporters cover non-news? Man licks dog.
No, man harnesses dog to sledge to drag liberal agenda forward.
We’ll know it’s a campaign if WDFL starts covering the family’s grief.
At last count, 24 comments on the KSTP site – all of which were either supportive of the actions of the permit holder who shot the robber or expressing a decided lack of sympathy for the sister who was interviewed.
“We’ll know it’s a campaign if WDFL starts covering the family’s grief.”
They did. The “inferior talk radio station” replayed a report from WDFL that ran last night, with the same basic talking points.
I’m waiting for someone to interview the elderly woman who was robbed and pistol-whipped. I also wonder if she might be about the same edge as the dearly-departed’s mother.
Insert footage of Don Shelby shaking his head here.
Maybe we should take a page from the Progressive playbook. Instead of asking for a sensible, reasonable law such as Stand Your Ground, we should be demanding the return of the Bounty system – honest citizens could earn hard cash for killing crooks and the streets would be safer, too.
We could call it a form of economic stimulus – get cash in the hands of citizens, reduce the costs of crime and lower the unemployment rate one crook at a time.
Win-Win-Win
Hey Mackbee, why do you refuse to condemn Kupchella and Sherno for not cutting the family a break by leaving them alone to grieve instead of interviewing them at such a bad time emotionally?
NW, I’d prefer this was all dropped without any interviews. (Well, word of mouth amongst the hoodlums can go on and on… about the perp pistol whipping a grandma and that the GS wasn’t even charged…)
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/10/24/dead-robbery-suspect%E2%80%99s-mom-%E2%80%98my-son-was-the-victim%E2%80%99/
Well, remember what happened in…was it Eagan or Apple Valley…about 6 years ago. A guy was on LSD, running naked down the street, and attacked a police officer. Policeman shot his assualter, causing perminant diablility to attacker. Atttacker/drug user sued the police/city and won a very large amount of money. Was it something like $3.5M?
Sometimes crime pays. Maybe these ladies are setting up for this.
Fresch…good link. 93 comments and all but 1 or 2 going after the mother and her bad parenting. And here is a bit on her (from the comments):
2009000534 EVANOVICH, MARY LEE 3/31/1971 2315 FILLMORE ST NE, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55418 1/6/2009 15:03 (Previous Convictions: Drugs-5th Deg-Poss Sch 1,2,3,4-Not Small Amt Marij)
Property Owner Name: Mark Matasovsky/Mary Junge 2200 Johnson St N E Minneapolis Mn 55418
Arrested for: DRUGS – 3RD DEGREE – SALE – NARCOTIC, DRUGS – 5TH DEGREE – POSSESS SCHEDULE 1,2,3,4 – NOT SMALL AMOUNT MARIJUANA
October 25, 2011 at 9:50 am | Reply | Report comment
blah blah blah
And the sister:
27-CR-10-55559
410446731
Evanovich, Olivia Reene
07/02/1992
12/02/2010
Hennepin Criminal/Traffic/Petty Southdale
Crim/Traf Mandatory
Under Court Jurisdiction
Receiving/Possessing Stolen Property
Victims of Society, one and all.
Did any of the DFL mouthpieces interview (or even try) alleged robbery victim?
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2011/10/_1_2_3_4_3.shtml
Speaking as someone who has a Minnesota gun permit, it is a perversion of the language to apply “Good Samaritan” to anyone who shoots another human being, even if the shooting is justified.
What the shooter will have to prove is that he had no reasonable alternative to shooting, which may be difficult, since he chased the “robber” with his gun.
Permit holders are taught that there is no legal obligation to protect others, much less to pursue an armed criminal. They also are taught that the use of deadly force is justifiable only if all of these conditions are present:
a) You are a “reluctant participant” and did not seek or provoke a confrontation
b) You face immediate fear of death or serious injury
c) No lesser force than lethal force will work; and
d) retreat is not practical
I suggest that A and D may be a problem for a shooter who chases an alleged criminal.
Also, as for the claim that our streets have not been running with blood, you neglect to mention this notorious 2005 incident at Nye’s, where Billy Walsh, a beloved bouncer, was murdered by a drunk carrying a gun and a permit:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-9469893/Guilty-plea-in-killing-of.html
The gun permit debate is not finished.
Posted by Nick Coleman | October 25, 2011 9:02 AM
K-Rod, I didn’t comment either way on the reporters. Mitch said he “almost drove off the road” after hearing the sisters comment. So, to use Mitch’s own words, I’m wondering why “man bites dog” would make you drive off the road?
Oh Ick! Now I’ve unintentionally read words written by “That Idiot Nick Coleman”. Give a person better warning next time, Fresch Fisch. 🙂
I didn’t know he had a carry permit. I wonder how many people carry in Mac Groveland?
“I also wonder if she might be about the same edge as the dearly-departed’s mother.” Hardly; Mother = 40yr. – Deceased Son = 23yr.
The family has multiple crimes on their records, this allegeded incident wouldn’t have counted as his first violent felony. It’s unfortunate that mommy was unable to teach her son that there’s an inherent risk of violent demise associated with a life of violent crime.
Fresch Fisch, do you really have a Minnesota Permit to Carry?
Who was your instructor, that you don’t even know what it’s called? (Hint: it’s not a “Minnesota gun permit” — no permit is required to own a gun.)
Anyway, you’ve missed, pretty much, the point.
There is no legal obligation to protect others. For that matter, there’s not legal obligation to protect one’s self — but it still might be a good idea.
No, he didn’t have to stop the 23-year-old thug felon from beating the crap out of a 53-year-old woman. He would have been, legally, in the clear to observe the assault — or to run away from it — while calling 911.
And the cops can usually get there in five or 10 minutes, so, really, why should he get involved?
He also didn’t, legally, have to chase the piece of dirt. And maybe, looking at our upside-down, inside-out, screwed-up society, where felons are “victims” and helping others makes you a “suspect,” he might have been wiser to let the waste of oxygen escape with the crime and the purse.
But the law is crystal clear that self defense and defense of others follow the same rules. The law is also crystal clear that any citizen may effect a citizen’s arrest upon witnessing a crime.
If we understand the story correctly (and I suspect we do), he was perfectly justified in giving chase. When the felon turned a gun on the good Samaritan, the good Samaritan was then, and only then, forced to defend himself with deadly force, as specifically permitted by law.
Many people, including instructors who should know better, think “reluctant participant” means “don’t get involved.”
You — and they — are wrong. The law requires that the defender be an innocent party who was not the aggressor. Legally defending one’s self, or another, as well as making a citizen’s arrest, are not prohibited acts of aggression.
It’s time for a refresher course.
We can see that Nick is pretty clueless about reality yet again.
Trying to stop a beating isn’t legally required, but morally it’s difficult to argue that just because you’re carrying a weapon you can’t intervene to save someone’s life who’s being assaulted by an armed robber. So the initial intervention certainly can overcome the “reluctant participant” exemption.
Without details on how far the chase went, it’s hard to determine whether “reluctant participant” applies. Was the chase 20′ to drive off the robber before he turned and pointed the weapon? 100 yards? A mile? Context makes a difference. I’d certainly make allowances for some “chase” for someone willing to put themselves between a criminal and a defenseless person to create a buffer zone before I’d classify what happened as a “chase.”
As for retreat not being practical, if we’re in an alley and someone turns and points a gun at me I’d have to say that retreat is highly unlikely to be practical since the instant someone who I know to have violent tendencies points a gun at me is the point at which I pull the trigger, not the point at which I look for a corner to duck around.
All said, I still believe in jury nullification and would refuse to convict based on the facts presented so far since morally I view what was done to be tragic, but justifiable. Not praiseworthy, just justifiable.
It was Nick Coleman who has a “Minnesota Gun Permit” it was a copy of Nick Coleman’s post on the MPR site.
I have a “State of Minnesota Permit to Carry a Pistol” issued by Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher.
Another thing about the guy that killed the bouncer at Nye’s. He wasn’t carrying at the time the bouncer threw him out. He had to go home to retrieve his gun, so whether or not he had a permit to carry was irrelevant. Anyone could have gone home to get their gun, permit or no permit. If he would have been carrying at the time the bouncer threw him out, and he then shot the bouncer, THEN it would have been a relevant fact that he had a permit to carry, and was carrying at the time he committed the crime, killing the bouncer in a “wild west” manner. Going home to get your gun != wild wild west.
Another thing to keep in mind: This is the second instance of a MN permit holder killing someone in 6 years. You try and come up with ANY OTHER way of dying that has only happened twice in the last 6 years; man-made/man-caused, natural, or freak occurrence. Hell, more people have died by lightning strike in this state since 2005 (one in 2007, 2 in 2009) than have been killed by permit holders. The “beloved” Hiawatha line is up to what? 6 or 7 now? The track record of the population of permit holders in this state is 1 small step below Pope John Paul II’s record of celibacy.
To repeat what Mitch has said before in other posts “There is no ‘there’ there.” The only reason the gun debate in this state isn’t over is because a shrinking minority of GFW’s can’t unwad their panties, and a shrinking minority of fascists won’t give up fighting for control.
And now we learn that one of the sisters sobbing on camera was an accomplice.
http://southeast.kstp.com/news/news/110940-sister-robber-shot-and-killed-mpls-arrested
Oh, what a lovely family.
You know, back when I taught at a major midwestern university all our salaries were public. It’s a shame that that same transparency doesn’t apply to the recipients of the various kinds of welfare. I’d bet if we had access to those records we’d be surprised how much this family is pulling out of the state.
So, stepping in to prevent a robbery (ending in death of an (alleged) perp) is barbaric, while walking by and not getting involved is an affront to morality. Which is it?
Hey Mackbee, still can’t get yourself to condemn Kupchella and Sherno for not cutting the family a break by leaving them alone to grieve instead of interviewing them at such a bad time emotionally?
According to DeeGee over at PenisBlog the 2nd Amendment is not about an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. In other news, moon-bat liberal fascists declare freedom of speech only applies to servicemen.
DeeGee must be unfamiliar with the Heller and McDonald USSC decisions. Certainly her opinions bear more weight.
My apologies to Mr. Fish, as I didn’t understand, when I posted, that you were quoting Coleman.
Pingback: The Media And The Evanovich Shooting: One Big Unanswered Question | Shot in the Dark