The robbers eventually fled and Ahmed locked the door. But a minute later they decided to try and break back in.
“By their behaviors and from what I saw, it appeared they were trying to get back into the store to finish the job,” Dosser said.
Dosser happened to be walking by University Market and saw a man with a gun pounding on the door. The gunman then looked at Dosser.
“There’s a million thoughts that go through your head in that, you know, 10 to 20 seconds,” Dosser said.
With a permit to carry a firearm, Dosser said he pulled out his own gun and held it at the ready position. That’s when the two men got into their vehicle and took off.
“I am shook up. Don’t get me wrong,” Dosser said. “This isn’t something that people like myself that carry a weapon ever want to have to do.”
via Mpls. Man With Permit Pulls Out Gun, Stops Robbery In Progress « CBS Minnesota.
If I am not mistaken, Minnesota like Florida does not allow the Defensive Display of a Firearm. It is very doubtful that Mr. Dosser will be charged with a crime as he did stopped a Forcible Felony in progress and defended a victim. But that is just it: Doubtful, not 100% sure.
We need that 100% as the law of the land everywhere. It is insane that we have to be legally forced to shoot a criminal or not touch the gun at all if the result is a charge and possible conviction for Assault with a Deadly Weapon. We cannot risk ourselves than an eager-for-headlines prosecutor decides he does not like you or the fact you are legally armed and sends you to the poor house or prison because he went ahead and charged you with a felony.
Our legal mandate has always been that we use the gun to stop the threat. We don’t give Coup de Gras if the subject is down and unable to continue the Forcible Felony. By the same measure, if we are able to stop it by the simple display of the gun, we have legally and morally achieved the mandate without anybody needlessly pouring blood on the ground.
In Florida, HB 89 (CS Filed) has been given a favorable by the Criminal Justice Subcommittee. This is not the original bill but a substitute that includes the possibility for those serving time for not shooting somebody after displaying a firearm can apply for Executive Clemency. If you are a Floridian, please contact your State Representative and Senator and ask them to fully support this bill when it comes to the floor.
Everybody else in other states, get cracking! Support your state’s gun rights organization and tell them you need a law like HB 89.
It is just frigging common sense.
UPDATE: Read the comment section for Andrew Branca’s input. And get his book too: The Law of Self Defense. The Indispensable Guide to the Armed Citizen, 2nd Edition.
I believe that we should have more books about guns, training and the law than guns themselves. This one is one that you need to have and read from cover to cover.
Miguel: “If I am not mistaken, Minnesota like Florida does not allow the Defensive Display of a Firearm.”
Well, with all respect, I’d suggest that’s not quite the right way to look at the issue.
Minnesota and Florida also don’t allow you to shoot people–unless you have legal justification in doing so. One such justification would, of course, be self-defense.
Self-defense would also be a complete defense to display of a firearm. The issue for the jury would be whether your display of the firearm was an appropriate response of a person in fear of imminent death or grave bodily harm–and, given that the gun wasn’t fired, perhaps not even that great a degree of threat. If they believe the conduct was reasonable self-defense, they’ll be instructed to acquit, as self-defense is an absolutely legal defense to all underlying charges.
Granted, it’s always nice to have a statute on the books making it explicit that a genuine defensive display of a firearm is not a crime.
But the mere fact that such a statute is NOT on the books doesn’t mean such a display is automatically unlawful–it may still be lawfully justified as self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, etc., just as if the gun had been drawn and fired (and must meet all the same conditions of those legal defenses, of course).
Incidentally, even where there are “defensive display” statutes, it must still be established that the display WAS, in fact, defensive in nature. So it’s not like it’s a get out of jail free card. The prosecutor is perfectly free to argue that the display was not defensive, because your perception of the necessity was unreasonable, or you were the aggressor, or whatever, and therefore it was unlawful brandishing.
In short, should you feel it necessary to make a defensive display of a firearm it would be prudent to have at hand a compelling narrative for your lawful justification/necessity in doing so. 🙂
Anyway, that’s how I see it. 🙂
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Andrew, your input and clarifications are always very welcome as we all strive not to wear orange rompers. 🙂
Well, shucks. 🙂 Always happy to toss in my two cents, it’s what I do. 🙂
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
I’d feel a whole lot better knowing it was on the books…
All it takes is electing the right people. 🙂
But were I pushing a self-defense legislative agenda, SD immunity, both civil and criminal, SYG, and expansive presumptions of reasonableness would be at the top of my list. That said, defensive display wouldn’t be far down the list.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
[…] Go to this article […]
Arizona has a defensive display law, because criminals were claiming that people who displayed guns defensively were the aggressors, and anti-gun prosecutors were prosecuting them. Being required to go to trial and defend oneself in court is a pretty severe punishment these days.
In the case of Florida, the prosecutors were using mandatory sentencing for using a gun in a crime to leverage people to plead to a lower level felony, when they displayed a gun to prevent aggression.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/12/fldefensive-display-and-warning-shot.html
(1) A defensive display law is not going to stop an anti-gun prosecutor. They’ll simply argue that your display was aggressive, not defensive, in nature, and therefore you fall outside the scope of the defensive display statute. Exactly the way they were claiming that the people displaying guns defensively were the aggressors before the defensive display law was in effect. *shrug* It’s really just “feel-good” legislation. That said, I’m all in favor of pro-gun “feel-good” legislation–if nothing else, it sets a pro-gun tone at trial.
(2) Prosecutors always have, and always will, use the threat of a more serious charge/sentence as an inducement to plea out to a lesser charge/sentence. Just the way the criminal justice machine is built.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
The way the laws are worded makes a difference. It makes it harder for anti-gun prosecutors to persecute people. There is also the possibility of grand juries, and as you say, the actual trial.