A clarification is in order here:

I think that the recent shooting of a mugger by a permit holder, as reported here and here was justified.

Thanks to this article, in the Pioneer Press, some folks have gotten the wrong idea about where I stand. 

The problem with speaking to the press is that they are looking for short answers.  Unfortunately, this is a complex issue and short answers don't always work. 

Currently, conflicts exist between the required elements of self-defense (based mainly in caselaw) and the statutory laws allowing for citizen's arrest.

Currently, four elements are examined by the court when justifying the use of deadly force in self-defense:

1. Lack of aggression on the victim's part (referred to as the “reluctant participant” test).
2. Reasonable fear of immediate death or great bodily harm.
3. No lesser force will do – that is, you are facing deadly force.
4. Retreat is not practical.

However, Minnesota statutes also allow a citizen to make an arrest for a criminal act, and allow them to use necessary and reasonable force to do so. 

If a felony was committed in his presence, the permit holder would have the right to make a citizen's arrest under Minn. Stat. 629.37.    Minn. Stat. 609.06 allows necessary and reasonable force to make the arrest.

The article quoted me as saying: “"The two issues I see are reluctant participation and retreat. If he chased the guy, he didn't retreat."  I said that, but it's not all that I said.


What didn't get printed was the rest of my comments, where I went on to say that the self-defense requirements and citizen's arrest statutory laws were in conflict, and that I expected that the court would find his actions necessary and reasonable.

When the Legislature was in session, I testified in favor of improving the law and allowing citizens to “stand their ground” in the face of attack, rather than require retreat. This case is an excellent example of why the “stand your ground” law is necessary. 

Since this article was printed, additional misquotes of my statement have been reprinted by people on both sides of the issue claiming I said the shooting was not justified.

That's not what I said, and I never intended to convey that.

This is not my first rodeo. Generally, my experience with the press has been very positive.  But we all have to live and learn.  

I know a couple of folks in the local gun rights community are annoyed by my speaking out of turn, but the person I'm most concerned about here is the permit holder who found himself facing an armed robber and had to defend himself.

Whoever you are, you have my support, and I hope you are doing okay.