Minn. farmer charged after chasing thief
02-02-2007, 09:13 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Mid-Missouri
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minn. farmer charged after chasing thief
Minn. farmer charged after chasing thief
CAMBRIDGE, Minn. (AP) -- A farmer who chased down a thief and held him at gunpoint until authorities arrived now faces a more serious charge than the thief himself.
Kenneth Englund, 74, was charged with second-degree assault, a felony. The thief, who the sheriff said admitted stealing about $5 worth of gasoline from Englund's neighbor, was charged with misdemeanor theft.
Sheriff Mike Ammend said people can't take the law into their own hands, and that Englund's actions were "an invitation to a shootout. There's so many things that could have gone wrong here."
On Oct. 15, Englund pointed a gun at Christian Harris Smith, 28, and a woman at the vacant farm next to Englund's place in Bradford Township. He then chased their vehicle at speeds of 70 mph, according to the criminal complaint. A 3-year-old child was in the vehicle.
During the chase, Englund used a cell phone to call the sheriff's office and asked if he should "blow them away," according to the complaint. His shotgun turned out to be unloaded.
Englund, a Township Board member for 37 years, pleaded not guilty, was released without having to post bail and is to return to court Feb. 22.
Smith was charged with another theft and was held in the county jail on a felony warrant from another state.
Prosecutor Dan Conlin said no one is looking to put Englund in jail. He said the charge fits the facts, but the case doesn't need to be resolved as a felony.
More than 350 people attended a fundraising dinner for Englund last month and a petition has circulated supporting him.
Bradford Township, about 45 miles north of Minneapolis, does not have a police force, and Englund said criminals can escape by the time a deputy arrives from Cambridge, 15 miles away.
I just found this and thought I would share it here. Looks like a guy can't stop a thief!
CAMBRIDGE, Minn. (AP) -- A farmer who chased down a thief and held him at gunpoint until authorities arrived now faces a more serious charge than the thief himself.
Kenneth Englund, 74, was charged with second-degree assault, a felony. The thief, who the sheriff said admitted stealing about $5 worth of gasoline from Englund's neighbor, was charged with misdemeanor theft.
Sheriff Mike Ammend said people can't take the law into their own hands, and that Englund's actions were "an invitation to a shootout. There's so many things that could have gone wrong here."
On Oct. 15, Englund pointed a gun at Christian Harris Smith, 28, and a woman at the vacant farm next to Englund's place in Bradford Township. He then chased their vehicle at speeds of 70 mph, according to the criminal complaint. A 3-year-old child was in the vehicle.
During the chase, Englund used a cell phone to call the sheriff's office and asked if he should "blow them away," according to the complaint. His shotgun turned out to be unloaded.
Englund, a Township Board member for 37 years, pleaded not guilty, was released without having to post bail and is to return to court Feb. 22.
Smith was charged with another theft and was held in the county jail on a felony warrant from another state.
Prosecutor Dan Conlin said no one is looking to put Englund in jail. He said the charge fits the facts, but the case doesn't need to be resolved as a felony.
More than 350 people attended a fundraising dinner for Englund last month and a petition has circulated supporting him.
Bradford Township, about 45 miles north of Minneapolis, does not have a police force, and Englund said criminals can escape by the time a deputy arrives from Cambridge, 15 miles away.
I just found this and thought I would share it here. Looks like a guy can't stop a thief!
02-02-2007, 09:41 AM
#2
I was banned per my own request for speaking the name Pelosi
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bristol Michigan
Posts: 1,908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He had plenty of opprtunity to get a good description and a vehicle plate. No "citizen's arrest" for a $5 misdemeanor. Even police can't use lethal force for a $5 Misdemeanor. In a similar situation, you think the "township board member" would have tollerated a "township police officer" chaseing a misdemeanant down in an unmarked/lightd car, and hold him at gunpoint? I bet he would've voted on canning the guy when the press got ahold of it. Most places don't want marked units with lights chaseing a non-violent felony, these days, much less larceny of gasoline.
02-02-2007, 09:45 AM
#3
DTR's Night Watchman & Poet Laureate
that goes way beyond protecting property or simply trying to enforce the law against a misdemeanor.....that occurred at an unoccupied prperty.....
02-02-2007, 09:47 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Backwoods of Missouri CSA
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I consider a thief a thief. I don't care what he is stealing or how much it is worth if he comes on my property and tries to steal something I should have the right to do something about it. The courts sure won't. Only criminals have rights in most of the judges minds now days. By chasing them down the highway he was violating laws himself at that point though as well as endangering innocents.
02-02-2007, 09:56 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This guy was not protecting his own property, but....when is it ok to protect my own property? Regardless of the value. Why can' t I hold you, by what ever means necessary, for taking my property. Why is it that "they" think we cannot, should not protect ouselves and our property? Vote Libertarian!
02-02-2007, 09:58 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Corfu, NY
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the crime the guy commited I think he went a overboard but also in the article it says that the gun wasn't loaded so I don't know how he was going to "blow them away" like he supposedly suggested. If it were a different crime or a home invasion I think it is completely warranted. I keep a loaded shotgun in my closet mounted to the wall about 5 feet from my bed but out of sight if someone even looked in there. Granted it's not loaded with all lethal rounds. First round is a bean bag. 2nd two are rubber ball rounds, next is bird shot, buck shot and then a slug. I really hope that if it ever came down to it I would never get past the non lethal rounds but I won't hesitate if it comes down to it. I've already been a victim of a home invasion and didn't have the gun loaded but just the sound of my cycling it made the guy run back out the front door. I called the cops but they never found him. Freaked me out enough to take a home protection course offered by the local police department and purchase non-lethal rounds. It's a very fine line and nothing should be taken lightly. If you are going to have a weapon you better be ready to use it otherwise it will be used against you. That was something they stressed on us in the course. I always felt safe just having a gun in the house until that happened. Now I've moved and am in a much better place but it's more isolated and very expensive area and robberies have happened. It's mostly retired people where I live so they are looked at as easy prey. We do have an alarm on our house that will contact the police if it's activated but in my mind, I can never be too safe anymore.
Trending Topics
02-02-2007, 10:03 AM
#8
DTR's Night Watchman & Poet Laureate
The amount of force you are legally able to use varies from state to state( TX for example) but the majority of states laws allow to use only the amount of force reasonably needed to protect your person from death or bodily harm...
so if the perp is fleeing, generally lethal force is a little bit over the top....
and in this case, the guys WASN'T the property owner, the misdemeanor theft was occurring on a vacant property.
He instigated a confrontation and when the suspects fled, continued it by chasing the fleeing suspects and threatening lethal force.
His best course of action would simply to have been a good witness..
02-02-2007, 10:05 AM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Corfu, NY
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Chrisreyn .. once they left the threat is over. I might chase them off my property but I wouldn't jump in my car and chase them down. I'd get info and get it to the police.
Just me personally.
Just me personally.
02-02-2007, 10:06 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgetown, TX
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At what $ amount do you think it is justifiable to catch a thief? A thief is a thief! If you put a $ amount on you create the loopholes that make the criminal justice system what it is today. I admit that this guy has a history of chasing people, but we do have the right to protect our selves and our property regardless of the $ amount involved. I hear people ask all the time Is it worth killing some one for stealing a TV or radio. I think the real question should be Is it worth dieing over a TV or radio.
02-02-2007, 10:07 AM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sussex, New Brunswick
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there was a guy around here who had stuff stolen from him on over 3 occasions, the third time he caught him, the guy ended up getting shot in the back of the head, although he tried to hit the escaping truck..
02-02-2007, 10:17 AM
#13
Do you want the blood of a retarded, schizophrenic, desperate, young, sick or naive person on your hands for $5.00 worth of gas? You're not legally allowed to take life, or physically threaten to take life, in that situation. Nor should you be morally allowed to. The guy who chased down and held a shotgun to the guy for $5.00 of gas should be smacked worse than the guy stealing the gas initially, although I'll say that the guy stealing the gas should be smacked more than they're probably going to smack him for.
If you're life is threatened, then you may take a life. Not over property, especially not over some gasoline. Both parties were totally in the wrong.
02-02-2007, 10:19 AM
#14
Registered User
Here's how the state of Texas sees protection of one's own and third party property:
Rusty
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
02-02-2007, 10:22 AM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: St Paul , MN.
Posts: 2,888
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's too bad the world is brainwashed into thinking that we should not defend ourselfs , the criminals get that and feel free to do what they please , if they thought that there could be consequence to there actions there would be less bad behavior , even at just small none criminal , just plain day to day interactions .
Then when it comes to that guy if he get out there too far , prosicute , for his actions , if we try to make laws inadvance of things going bad then we'll have to ban life , because something bad will happen sooner or later , so ban it now .
Just like are so called leaders , they've got away with almost all the money , power , and murder - war for oil , they should be prosicuted , to show future leaders that thats not right , [ by leaders I mean all , political & none , buis. ]
I think of it as a libertaryan view point , very few laws [ and simple enough so all will under stand ] , the law is to protected the law biding from the none lawbiding , so the laws are aplied to the criminals , not the lawbiding .
Hope you can get by the rant & see how it seems to me how our constitution was intended to be , not twisted to the advantage of [ those that own the gold rule ].
Then when it comes to that guy if he get out there too far , prosicute , for his actions , if we try to make laws inadvance of things going bad then we'll have to ban life , because something bad will happen sooner or later , so ban it now .
Just like are so called leaders , they've got away with almost all the money , power , and murder - war for oil , they should be prosicuted , to show future leaders that thats not right , [ by leaders I mean all , political & none , buis. ]
I think of it as a libertaryan view point , very few laws [ and simple enough so all will under stand ] , the law is to protected the law biding from the none lawbiding , so the laws are aplied to the criminals , not the lawbiding .
Hope you can get by the rant & see how it seems to me how our constitution was intended to be , not twisted to the advantage of [ those that own the gold rule ].