Pawn shop owner is arrested for shooting and killing a suspected looter in Minnesota, your thoughts?

[ADFSDF1996]

A Minnesota pawn shop owner shot and killed a “suspected” looter. The reason he got arrested was because Minnesota doesn’t have a stand your ground law.

While the castle doctrine allows people to defend themselves, their families and their personal property when they are in their homes. The castle doctrine doesn’t allow people to defend their businesses.
sources:
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/pawn-shop-owner-arrested-after-shooting-suspected-looter/

https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/pawn-shop-owner-fatally-shoots-alleged-looter-during-riot-Gl-9w5QC9UK5YkjBVrajLA

https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2020/05/28/looter-shot-dead-pawn-shop-owner-george-floyd-riots-12768878/amp/

He shouldn’t have been arrested, the castle doctrine law should be updated to include defense of businesses

I support his right to personal defense but he should have known that his state doesn’t have a stand your ground law

I support his right to personal defense but I think he should have used non lethal force

I think the pawn shop owner should have only used force if he or someone else was in danger

Since the articles say he was only a “suspected” looter, that makes it seem that the pawnshop owner crossed the line.

Updates

+1 y

Some store owners are starting to defend their stores elsewhere

www.google.com/.../

[MORPHEUS_12]

Here in Richmond, Virginia there have been 4 nights of mass looting and roiting. Museums and many many private businesses have been lost. Our governor only called a state of emergency only 5 hours ago. Citizens are saying he needs to call in the National Guard, yet that hasn't been done. I am reading the Richmond PD request for call log online and its bad again tonight. There are all sorts of calls for shots fired and fires. Firefighters have gotten death threats and are not wearing their name badges out of fear. I commented on your post mainly because I wondered how long it would be until we heard of a citizen taking matters into their own hands. In fact people are threatening to take the law into their hands it placed in a situation. I do agree with protecting one's self and business and when I got my CWP we were told every bullet has consequences. If the shop owner's life was in danger and he feared for his life, I think he did what any other responsible gun owner would have done. About 10 years ago there was a local franchisee owner of a Baskin Robbins ice cream shop and he was robbed at gunpoint. The owner shot the robber but because he shot the robber in the back it meant to the prosecution that the owner was in danger because the robber was leaving. That store owner was found guilty and charged with murder. So, all of these details will come out and the DA or CA will determine whether or not to prosecute the owner.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

We don’t know all the circumstances and details, though at first glance the law isn’t on his side. SYG and other self-defense law is about defending life, not stuff.

[ADFSDF1996]

Self defense is also about defending personal property.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

If you check the laws very carefully, no it isn’t.

[ADFSDF1996]

Castle doctrine

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

No. I’m a criminal defense attorney. Castle doctrine comes from 17th century English civil law, and has no force of law aside from SOME of the concepts which have been enacted under state statutes. Only Texas has a defense of property provision, and even that is narrowly focused.

[ADFSDF1996]

Actually 23 states have a castle doctrine law.
worldpopulationreview.com/.../

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

Yes they do, but each state that cites it defines in its criminal statutes how they apply it and the limitations. Castle doctrine is actually more the basis for search and seizure law than it is about self-defense law. SYG circumstances also vary among the states; in some, SYG does not extend outside of the home, in others it extends to any place a person has a legal right to be. Citing the broad term Castle Doctrine in the practice and application of law is, for all practical purposes, meaningless. It is the state’s statutes that the judicial system goes by.

[ADFSDF1996]

It is a self defense law but it is only valid if you are defending yourself while you are in your home and yes each of the 23 states have their own version of the castle doctrine. Some states have stronger castle doctrine laws than others.
www.southuniversity.edu/.../castle-doctrine-from-state-to-state-46514

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

Lol yes I know all of this, I’m a criminal trial lawyer remember? All I’m saying is don’t rely on second and third party pieces. It is the statute of the state one is in that matters, not gratuitous talk about the Castle Doctrine. I’ve defended several self-defense cases, some were clearly justified, some were questionable, and some were clearly not justified under law. In the latter cases, the accused thought he was fully justified until I showed them what the law really says - late at night and while in custody. Utterances of “Castle Doctrine” and the mistaken belief that all one has to say is “I feared for my life” may play on the Internet, but not in the judicial system where it gets real, really fast.

[ADFSDF1996]

If it’s from a verified source the information is reliable.

And I know the castle doctrine isn’t always considered a valid. There’s so many variables that ultimately determine whether or not a person was justified in acting in self defense.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

Reliable sometimes, complete rarely. Remember I'm just the messenger here. I don't always agree with the laws as they are written, but I have to live with and apply them every day.

[ADFSDF1996]

What does the law say about non lethal self defense.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

It depends on the state. Generally speaking, it's far easier to justify use of non-lethal force but it all comes down to whether the situation called for use of any force. If someone is getting approached in a parking garage and makes someone uncomfortable, and doesn't heed to commands not to advance any further, then deploying a taser or stun gun would usually be justified. Using non-lethal force as a means of retribution or out of anger usually makes it aggravated assault if it doesn't swing the "defender's" way. I once popped a would-be thief with a bean bag round from a 12 gauge when he was trying to forcibly enter an outbuilding. I self-reported, the police investigated, never found the guy, but I was cited with unlawful discharge of a firearm in city limits.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

When it comes to non lethal or less than lethal (terms used interchangeable), believe it or not generally speaking it's highly discouraged for civilians to use it for a lot of reasons. Peace officers are often held to escalation of force rules, civilians are not and are usually not sufficiently trained to use it. It's far easier to train a citizen to use a firearm than it is to train him or her in all the second or third order tactics that come into play with non lethal devices.

[ADFSDF1996]

I guess it really depends by state, some states are more lenient than others when it comes to non lethal self defense, particularly in states that have a stand your ground law. California doesn’t have a stand your ground law, instead they have a duty to retreat law which you know means a person has to retreat and on not use self defense if they have no other choice. But even then a person can still get in trouble if the particular authorities think the person still had the option to run away.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

Interestingly, some states' (including mine) laws regarding non lethal defense apply only to peace officers, they don't even address civilian use of it thus it they fall under assault laws where totality of the circumstances and the reasonable person standard are the guiding principles. You're right about SYG in California. Oddly enough, in Minnesota where this incident took place, there's a duty to retreat anywhere except in a person's dwelling. I didn't know this until I read the state's mandatory jury instructions last night, and sure enough, the revised statute doesn't require DTR in the home.

[ADFSDF1996]

Yup, Minnesota doesn’t have castle doctrine but apparently it does “allow” people to defend themselves within their homes but not within their businesses.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

Right :-)

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

I teach the law portions of concealed carry and use of lethal force here in the state, and I'm one of the attorneys listed with one of the national concealed carry organizations (in other words, I get the late night/wee hours of the morning calls for help). I'd write a MyTake on the truth and myths about carry and use of lethal force, but state law variances would make it useless, and as you probably know, trolls on here are experts on virology, sexuality, the male and female minds, law, the economy and whatever the topic happens to be. My general guides for use of lethal force are usually easy enough to remember.

[BlackAndBlueBalls]

that's a tough spot. You have to know the laws in the state you live and what they allow you to do to protect yourself, family, or just your property. While I'm on the side of believing we should have the right to protect our property like that because it provides us the means to feed our family and survive, it just isn't the law in some places yet. I don't know this story, but if he was in the shop when this happened, he very well could claim that his life was threatened due to the violence taking place there.

[monkeynutts]

Yeah fuck it, that's just not right, someone invades your property when in a state of emergency like what's happening, you should be able to use deadly force. We don't have it here, and I know a man that tried to protect his daughter in a home invasion and he killed the attacker, he went away for 8 years. It's pretty fucked. Least he still has his daughter alive.

[BestUserName100]

I think only if after plenty of warning, or if they have a gun and you are scared for your life and they raise it at you in a threatening way. In my eyes if you did all that and they still did it? .. Well they pretty much did it to themselves and left you with no other choice.

[BestUserName100]

Think about it like if that were a cop? .. Do you think they'd let them do that. Still if they didn't have a weapon or anything and weren't being threatening? No.. I'd definitely say don't shoot them and that's a pretty clear and obvious answer.

[BestUserName100]

That would be pretty close to the definition of murder if you ask me.

[ADFSDF1996]

So you think the pawn shop owner from Minnesota could be found guilty for murder?

Also, what’s your opinion on non lethal force?

[BestUserName100]

I don't know I didn't read all of that. I'm just going off of whatever.. What I wanted to put. About the subject..

[ADFSDF1996]

What were you referring to?

[BestUserName100]

The title of it.. You know giving what I think on that.. And when I think lethal force might be ok..

[ADFSDF1996]

What you mean is that the pawn shop owner should have only used force if he was being physically attacked.

[BestUserName100]

Yeah stuff like that and in fear for his life then giving plenty of warning first. And if they have a gun or something.

[LoU_Hades]

When a bunch of looters appears to loot a business where the owner is willing to defend it without using deadly force. It leads automatically to life threatening situation if looters start to attack him and this gives the shop defender the right to use deadly force. I guess if the shop owner has been attacked and recorded current situation on cams, he will get away with it.
Everything else is arbitrariness and interpretation of the law.

[00100100100]

I think George Orwell would be more upset about police murdering people than a pawn shop owner being charged for shooting a suspected looter. The pawn shop owner will have his day in court. George Floyd won't.

[ADFSDF1996]

If you actually think America is a “police state” then you don’t actually know what a police state actually is.

[00100100100]

I never said america is a police state nor implied it. My point is Orwell would be more concerned about the police brutalizing and murdering people than a pawn shop owner, who will have their day in court, being jailed for shooting someone.

[ADFSDF1996]

Well, by showing a picture of one cop kicking one cuffed person along with a George Orwell quote makes it seem that you think police brutality is a much more common occurrence than it actually is.

[adidas0169]

He had every right to protect his property. so its right to break into a store or home and take what you want? really how stupid are these people. thats the problem with these liberals and demacrats lets protect the CRIMINALS and FUCK THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

[goaded]

No, let's not allow people to kill people and get away with it; do that, and you're no longer a law-abiding citizen. Should you shoot jaywalkers? Shoplifters? Pick-pockets?

[adidas0169]

Those are completely different crimes but when you are looting and destroying someones property then you should be shot. people need to stop being candy asses and actually start standing up to these punk ass thugs. put it plan and simple break into my house or destroy my property i will promise you that you better hope that the cops show up before i drop you where you stand and your put into a body bag. i hate thieves and i hate people thinking that if i have something and you think your entitled to it guess what your not that goes for each and everyone one of these rioters. protesting is your right and its peacefully rioting isn't its a terroristic act

[goaded]

Really? They're all breaking the law, and the second and third are taking your property. Don't you get to kill them?

[adidas0169]

Stealing or destroying someone's property damn straight that person should be shot.

[goaded]

So, you would shoot shoplifters and pick-pockets, if you could.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

And risk killing an innocent bystander.

[adidas0169]

If they are destroying my property and are robbing the place yes i would. i dont think you guys dont understand what is going on right now. these are simple shoplifters that are stealing a pack of gum or a pop etc. these people if you want to call them people they are destroying people's life work. so yes people should have every right to protect whats there's how ever they see fit. cops aren't doing a damn thing bc they are being told to stand down by these liberal governors and majors so people have to take care of matters thereselves.

[darkcloud1945]

I can only speak for my self but if i owned a business put my heart and soul and my money in it and you don't respect that then YOU LOOT I SHOOT!. You are not a protester you don't care a man was killed you just want a new tv sneakers booze looter. All these people who loot and cause damage are law breaker. Not protesters.

[goaded]

Maybe wait until they're in the building, at least?

[fabi1998]

Honestly it seems unnecessary just call the police. If someone is destroying things that's one thing but shooting someone because of that says a lot about the person.

[ArrowheadSW]

This is just it... You have to go by the laws of your state. And the laws of the state of Minnesota will determine what the fate of the policeman in question will be with the Floyd case.

[goaded]

The suspected looter was found on the sidewalk outside the store, and this was last Wednesday or Thursday.

[ADFSDF1996]

And?

[goaded]

Well, not in the store, not attacking the owner. If they break in, shooting them in the leg, may be justifiable, shoot someone outside the store? No. Kill them? No.

Criminal damage, theft, even robbery, etc., do not have a death sentence. Film them, so they can be arrested later, maybe shoot them if they directly threaten your safety, but you don't get to shoot people taking your stuff. (You should have it insured, anyway.)

[American_Centurion]

The law is the law unfortunately. Crime thrives in places where thugs have more rights than law abiding citizens.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Well, too bad. He should know his state laws. I also want people to notice how the man who killed the looter got arrested quickly while a coproach can murder someone on camera and not get arrested right away. 👌

[888theGreat]

If store owner was white and looter was black , they are going to have more trouble. I think people that own stores should lock up stores and secure them from break ends and just wait this out.

[Gedaria]

Is he black or white that is the important thing...

[ADFSDF1996]

Who?

[Gedaria]

The pawn shop owner...

[ADFSDF1996]

It doesn’t say.

[Blacksnake285]

You call 911 not shoot. Robbing the white man who stole this land from natives should legal. They shouldn't have all these businesses. They should belong to people of color

[WarAmongUS]

What about the Arabs that brought us here?

[Blacksnake285]

White people brought us here lol

[Blacksnake285]

Slavery

[WarAmongUS]

No bud, the Arab slave trade brought 9% of all slaves including white Irish slaves to America, in fact the Arab slave trade was 3x larger and 100x worse than the American slave trade.

And who do you think sold the African slaves to Britain and America? The Africans themselves

[Blacksnake285]

I knew that about the Africans. There's coons in every race. White people probably would still enslave their own if they had to

[WarAmongUS]

They do still... the majority of sex slave trade is white and black.

[NewtoTheSouth]

In my opinion, if people invade your private property with the intent to cause harm, then you have the right to defend yourself and kill, if necessary.

[Nadim171]

So what? He's supposed to let them loot his shop and stand there and do nothing?

I'm not surprised anymore.

[cloud9vortex1234]

Store Owners should know the laws where they do business.

[najekim]

Minnesota needs to update its laws. Many states have business defense laws along with home defense.

[Thatsamazing]

You make pretty dumbass posts, are the only thoughts anyone should be having about this. If you're going to post about "news," then link it to an actual news story, not bullshit.

[ADFSDF1996]

Oh grow up. At least I don’t go around insulting people for no reason.

[Thatsamazing]

No one is insulting you-- stop making stupid/bullshit posts if you don't want people to point out that they're stupid and bullshit. It's really rather simple.

[ADFSDF1996]

You literally go around this website acting like a Smart ass on everyone’s posts. Don’t lie, you only make yourself look more foolish than you already look.

[Thatsamazing]

Here, this may help you out, assuming you can read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Your posts are stupid. Stop making stupid posts and then people such as myself won't have to tell you that you make unintelligent posts about complex subjects.

[ADFSDF1996]

You lack the necessary amount of intelligence to identify an actual “stupid post” since you seem to think everyone’s post is stupid.

If you don’t like this website then f**k off.

[Thatsamazing]

(pats you on the head) Of course, sonny... of course.

[ADFSDF1996]

The pattern of your tone is self evident. This picture would look good on your profile.

[BronzedAdonis]

What kinda porn was he selling?

[ADFSDF1996]

@BronzedAdonis
Probably fart p*rn

JKJK

[Keyspirit]

Shoulda kill it with fire 🔥🔥🔥