A shoot-to-kill “good Samaritan”?

October 23, 2011

The Pioneer Press is citing Minnesota’s “good Samaritan law” in its story about the still-unnamed guy who chased down an apparent armed robber and shot him dead in south Minneapolis Friday night.  The Strib also is  describing the shooter as a “good Samaritan” and is quoting a source who says the fatal shooting likely was legally justified.

Not so fast.

As the Minnesota Court of Appeals explained in a 2002 decision, the purpose of Minnesota’s good Samaritan law “is to encourage laypersons to help those in need, even when they are under no legal obligation to do so, by providing immunity from liability claims arising out of an attempt to assist a person in peril.”

Is an armed robber’s victim “in peril” when — as here — the mugger flees the scene?  Likely, no.  Plus, the law does not shield a gunman from criminal liability.  Further, Minnesota’s good Sam law, like all others, is intended to protect us against getting sued for not giving CPR properly or getting in an accident while driving an injured child to the hospital.  I’m not aware of anything to suggest it was intended to shield a gunman from liability for chasing down and killing an apparent armed robber who was fleeing the scene of the crime.

The newspapers suggest that because the “good Samaritan” had a handgun permit, different rules apply.  They don’t.  The Minnesota “Personal Protection Act”  is not a license to use deadly force to protect or recover personal property such as a purse—let alone someone else’s. The Star Tribune quotes a firearms trainer and vice president of the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance who claims Minnesotans are “completely justified in shooting” if they give chase and the confrontation turned violent.  But arguably, such a “good Samaritan” who chases an armed robber knows the confrontation could turn violent and knowingly and voluntarily put himself in a situation where self-defense might very well be necessary.

All this being said, judging from commenters to the newspapers’ stories, many Minnesotans would find the killing justified, and as is typical a grand jury probably will decide whether the “good Samaritan” should be charged.   He very well might not be, and even if he is he might very well be acquitted.  But despite the newspaper reports, the gunman does not really fit the legal definition of “good Samaritan.”

2 Responses to “A shoot-to-kill “good Samaritan”?”

  1. Former Prosecutor Says:

    You are confusing the newspaper’s colloquial use of the term “good samaritan” with a precise LEGAL statute that the newspaper’s never referred to. If you had understood their stories you would know that they were refering to the concept of “citizens arrest” which is specifically authorized by Minn. Stat. sec. 629.37 (ah, ha — not in the criminal code at all). As the county attorney (a lawyer not a reporter) properly determined the actor last week was well within THAT statute. It is easy to criticize when YOU too have the wrong statute in mind. Check out 609.06 and .065 while you are at it. There are 3 legal incidents here, guess what they are? Go to law school as I did, prosecute for a few years, then you’ll learn better.

  2. Rob Says:

    Actually Former Prosecutor, the author IS a lawyer…

    http://medialawminnesota.com/about/

    However, with the lack of reading comprehension, and understanding of criminal law I can understand how that oversight is made.

    Stick to civil litigation Mr. Aggergaard.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 698 other followers

%d bloggers like this: