Grumpy's bouncer shot Tirso Cruz Gomez dead, police say [UPDATED]

• how dare you speak ill of the dead, who do you think you are? I knew tirso, he was a fun and a very warm and loving person, yes he did make a stupid choice that ended is life, how would you feel if that was your brother,father,son etc and some random ass person was being disrespectful with saying rude statements about someone you cared dearly about, you didnt even know him, yet you judge him for a mistake

• Glad to see you out yourself as a fan of thugs like Tirso. Speaks volumes that you'd see me in Hell over words while you make excuses for Tirso and his attempt to MURDER someone. I suspect you're more likely than I to be seeing Hell.  Say howdy to Tirso when you get there.

• Boo-fuckin'-hoo.  Reality is so mean. "Karma" was Tirso the violent thug dying while attempting to murder an innocent man.

• go to hell... insensitive prick

• wow! i cant believe you just said that.... karma is a bitch and so are you

• were you there??? you know how headlines can be.... get you head out of your ass and direct your energy elsewhere.

• you need to keep your ignorant comments to yourself

• Sure doesn't sound like you really know what happened... So why judge?

• He's a LIVE "pussy." Tirso Gomez, the "manly" little punk that thought he had the right to stab someone to death for being told to go home?  That little bitch is feeding the worms today.

• Those "loved ones" should have done a better job of raising young mister Gomez to be a responsible contributing member of society. Instead, they brought Tirso up to be someone who thought he had the right to force his way into a bar when told to stay out, and who thought he had the "right" to start stabbing and slicing employees of the bar when he was refused entry. Those "loved ones" should be paying the bouncer for his medical expenses that Tirso Gomez caused.  And they should get a bill for his drycleaning and the cost of the ammunition too.

• What a fucking moron.  "Proportionality"?  Defending oneself from a lunatic with a knife isn't a sporting event.  Gomez was using a DEADLY WEAPON to attack an innocent person.  The bouncer was 100% JUSTIFIED in shooting Gomez to stop Gomez's attempted MURDER of the bouncer.

• Deciple of Aimless?

• Good shoot OP.  Sorry you had to go through the nightmare, but an evil guy was coming back to carve you up with a large kitchen knife, what's so hard for many of the dense posters here, to understand?

• I'm sick of all of the bullshit referring to the dead 24 year old as a "kid." He was a grown man. He made a decision to try to MURDER someone else and got killed in the process. Good riddance.

• "Homicide" is a neutral term. Legally, it usually has a qualifier, e.g., "negligent" homicide, or in the case of the bouncer and the knife-wielding freak who attacked him, "justifiable" homicide.

• Many of the comments here are so stupid they make my brain hurt.  I applaud the bouncer for what can only be described as the exactly correct course of action.  It is a shame that he was FORCED to take a life, and I pray that he doesn't beat himself up too much for it over the years.  The fact is that we all live in a society with predators.  Sometimes we find ourselves as the prey.  It is a human right to be secure in your person and defend your life or that of another from threat.  There is one less predator in the world today, as worm fodder Tirso Cruz Gomez is taking the eternal celestial dirt nap.  We are all a little safer. The lesson to learn here is the value of concealed carry.  Hopefully this tale of heroism will be the inspiration for many more citizens to learn about, train for, and engage in concealed carry.

• I love the use of the term Homicide in this article, as if to imply that a crime was committed.  When will people realize that defense of your life against an armed attacker by the most effective means possible is a God given right.  If the bouncer is reading these comments....GOOD FOR YOU SIR.  You did well.  Don't lose a single night of sleep over shooting a man who clearly would have taken your life had you not stopped him.

• your an idiot. the guy came at him with a knife and the bouncer first tried to defend himself with a extendable baton. when the drunk kept charging at him he drew his pistol for fear of his life and even shouted stop before he pulled the trigger after the drunk kept coming at him with a DEADLY WEAPON. you have some belligerant drunkard attack you with a knife...we'll give you some pepper spray and then come back by later to pick your dead body up off the pavement and send our best to you family "ooops....guess pepper ccw's do have their merits"

• JUSTICE IS SERVED! CONGRATS TO THE BOUNCER! http://kstp.com/news/stories/s1707127.shtml?cat=1&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter <b>No Charges For Minn. Bouncer Who Fatally Shot Man</b> <i>Hennepin County prosecutors have decided not to charge a bouncer who shot and killed a man outside a bar last month. The attorney's office has concluded the bouncer acted in self-defense in the July 11 shooting. </i>

• ps about the bouncer being a asshole. Everytime I met him he was very nice and a guy that seemed to be kindhearted.

• Ya I feel for the parents of the kid but I feel more for the bouncer now he has to live with this everyday. You see people say bad things about the bouncer and good things. The truth is if you did not see it you should probly shut up. Eveything was ment for a reason.

• He stopped the kid before he got through the door. The kid wanted to get into the bar. When he stopped him is when he pulled the knife and cut the bounsers arm. The bounser used his batton to hit the knife loose but the kid did not drop it. Then the kid tryed to stab the bounser in the heart after he tripped. Thats when he pulled the gun and shot the kid. He is the hero. What would have happened if he would have gotten into the bar. He did a service to protect the business and the people and he did it well.

• Regardless of what happened, which apparently none of you know, nobody deserves to lose their life. Please keep in mind that this was somebodys big brother & son and let the family grieve. Don't talk ill of the dead have a little respect.

• If I was on the grand jury (if this came to a grand jury) this man would never see the inside of a courtroom. If it went to trial and I was on the jury, he would walk unless there was some booming voice of God epiphany that in defending himself he was somehow guilty.

• I would just like to say for the sake of both sides that no one was there when he got shot and no one knows the story of what happened beforehand I for one do not go to that bar if I see a certain bouncer there because he is such a (for a lighter term ) butthead and on another note I know that alot of people are to believe that it was an off duty policeman that did the shooting who is going to go against a cop? and again what I am writing is hearsay so who knows for sure until they are done with the investigation right?

• Anonymous wrote- "why would a bar hire a skinhead hate monger for a bouncer and then act surprised when he starts shooting at minority 's as soon as he gets a chance?" The answer is simple, they wouldn't.... and I'm betting they didn't... There is no evidence to suggest this.

• Krista wrote: "This man is dead because of conceal and carry laws..." Actually, the man is dead because he chose his victim poorly. Krista, the owner of a private business can allow staff or contractors to carry a firearm within the business without the need for a state issued permit to carry a firearm. This shooting isnt a permit to carry issue, its a social issue related to crime. Also, in MN, you are not required to conceal your firearm. The permit is a blanket carry permit with no requirement to conceal as in some other states.

• The law in MN is clear. MN statute 609.02 defines �Dangerous Weapon� which includes a knife because it has been proven and is a fact, that a knife can produce death or great bodily harm. If attacked with a dangerous weapon, the victim can defend him or herself with reasonable force. In this scenario, the gun and the knife are equal under the law and the bouncer�s level of force is therefore reasonable. See MN statute 609.06 and 609.065. Training: First, defensive firearm training teaches to shoot center of the largest exposed mass. In most situations, this is most likely the chest area. Shooting the knife out of the hand, shooting the leg or arm is a product of Hollywood movies and is not for real-life deadly encounters. Second, defensive firearm training teaches to keep shooting until the threat has passed. People on drugs or alcohol perpetrate many deadly encounters. These people cannot be reasoned with and in many cases are so high they continued to be a threat after being shot multiple times. Given what we know today, I applaud the bouncer for attempting to use the baton before reaching for his gun. Based on the circumstances, I believe the bouncer did everything right based on statute, case law and the training given to those with a permit to carry a firearm. As someone suggested, we all make mistakes. Paying for the mistakes that we make comes at different costs. Cheers!

• why would a bar hire a skinhead hate monger for a bouncer and then act surprised when he starts shooting at minority 's as soon as he gets a chance?

• how about a tazer? then handcuffs ,ohhh and did anyone call the police when this baton/knife struggle was goin on?a bouncer's job is'nt to kill people .he could have got him out side ,locked the door and called the cops .instead he decided to shoot first .secondly -i know the bouncer .he is a real asshole .he's a dangerous person! he's threatened me personally on several occasions in a very unprofessional manner.i seriously hope that the bar owners never let him back and that he is held responsible for his killing

• http://wcco.com/crime/Time.Out.Sports.2.363856.html Here's how the story could of went.

• To all of you that are calling the bouncer out for using a gun, you are the epitome of closed minded fools. You are calling the bouncer out for using a weapon right? For using an instrument that had the capacity to cause great bodily harm right? Then what about the drunken, knife wielding man? For some reason he's above your insults because he didn't survive? He's dead. He was shot twice in the chest, not four times as someone stated. Twice in the chest is considered reasonable to halt an attacker. He was kicked out for whatever reason, or at least refused service. He went home and got a knife and his mother pleaded with him to not return to grumpys. Sounds to me like mom knew what his intentions were and tried to stop him from making a terrible mistake. The bouncer was not drinking. Fact. I know that the bouncer was detained afterward, which is standard procedure, and if he had been drinking his permit would've been invalidated because ANY amount of alcohol can render one, or at least make the law consider somebody "impaired". The facts are these: The man was refused service, which is SOLELY up to the discretion of the bar. The man left, words may have been exchanged but he left unharmed. He went home and got a knife. Mom pleaded with him to not return to grumpys, which lends one to the notion that she was aware that he was up to nothing good. He returned to grumpys and displayed the knife, either in an attack or a threat of attack (remember, he said he was going to come back and cut the bouncer). The bouncer attempted to disarm him with a less than deadly tool, his baton, and was wounded in the process. The bouncer shot his attacker twice in the chest to halt further attacks. Attacker stops attacking, bouncer stops shooting. Attacker, unfortunately dies of his wounds. End of story. I feel for the bouncer and the bar. This is tragic and unfortunate. I feel for the deceased guys mother, what a terrible way to lose a child. Especially when you knew it was going to happen and you didn't call the cops to warn them that your son was about to attempt to murder someone, thus saving his life. I feel for the deceased. We all make mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes cost us or others lives. It's all too bad. But, I'm more supportive of conceal and carry laws exactly because of situations like this one. Otherwise we may be talking about someone who was doing his job being dead. Sure, maybe he's an asshole, maybe he's not, I don't know him. But he was justified to do what he did to protect his life and the lives of other potential victims, if there were any. That is all.

• This is directed towards "I posted this ... "; your logic is flawed. 1. He wasn't arrested. He was detained at the scene and later released. 2. His name hasn't been released. It's not uncommon to not release the names of individuals involved in an ongoing investigation. 3. He was carrying and knew how to use a baton.(no one went around a car) I can't comment on that one since I haven't read about it. 4. He was carring a gun. I carry a gun on occasion, and I'm not a police officer. 5. He had a permit for the gun (most police officer do.) Actually, all police officers have a permit for a gun. I do too; again, I'm not a police officer. 6. He knew how to effectivly use the gun. I can effectively use a gun, and again, I am not a police officer. I don't care how big and burly you think you might be; anyone coming at you with a knife is a threat, no matter how much smaller they are. As evidenced by the cuts to the bouncer's hand, it seems that the bouncer followed some sort of escalation of force: first trying to disarm the knife-wielding man by hand, then resorting to the presentation and eventual use of deadly force as a last resort. Also, this whole "shooting to wound" concept is a Hollywood creation; you shoot to kill because a man with a knife who has been shot in the leg can still stab you...adrenaline can be very motivating. So, two rounds in the chest aren't excessive: emptying your entire magazine, reloading, then shooting some more would be excessive. It's easy to sit back and second guess someone else's actions, especially when we weren't present and don't know all the details. Truth is, he was carrying a gun legally, and according to the available information, he exercised his right to self-defense in accordance with the law. If you don't like that law, then do the responsible thing and write to your State Representatives and lobby them to change the law. As far as being a loose cannon, that title should applied to the gentleman who pulled a knife because someone wouldn't let him into a bar.

• It's not murder... murder is a clearly defined thing, and this clearly does not fall into that catagory. I don't know where you get your facts, but Tirso went back looking for a fight and even his mother knew that. Shooting at the arm or leg is more likely to miss that to stop an attacker. The bouncer wont be sentenced to anything because he did nothing illegal... or even immoral in shooting a dirt bag alcoholic bent on getting himself killed. Sorry your friend was an idiot, but blaming the bouncer is really faulty logic.... misrepresenting the FACTS is downright lying....

• Although I do not agree with his decision, Tirso was a VERY sweet man. I think it's horrible that some people on here are congratulating the bouncer for murdering Tirso - that's sick! Tirso had been at the bar drinking and he left and wanted to come back in to grab another drink and thats when the bouncer and him got into it. The only knife Tirso had was a utlity key chain knife that was less than half an inch long, there's been a lot of mix up regarding that. The most horrible thing about this is that the bouncer could have easily tackled him down (Tirso was shorter than 6 foot and weighed 130lbs) or if needed shot him in the arm/leg... not in the chest four times. Also, from what I heard from some of the people at the bar, the bouncer had been drinking himself! The bouncer (who's name i will not say out of concern) has been known to be a complete jerk to many of the patrons and staff. T I hope the bouncer is sentenced to life for the horrible crime he committed and i pray for him if he doesnt.

• It's people like you, concerned citizen, who makes this world such an ugly place. Btw, that bouncer is not at all a police officer. He is a bouncer, working weekends making $75 a night. He was probably a regular at that bar and needed a job. That's it! He had no special training, he was just a coward with a gun.

• Andrew said- "If that puts me in contradiction to the law, the Dalai Lama, world religions, and history's most notable philosophers, I'm fine with that; in the same stroke it distinguishes me from every serial killer and mass murderer." Well, at least we know where you stand now, and I can respect that. Although I might point out that there are many many many other ways to be distinguished from every serial killer and mass murderer. I have managed all my life to be quite distinctly different than they without standing in the face of all logic. I really hope no one is ever in serious danger from a knife wielding maniac in your presence.... you will be what is called "of such heavenly thoughts that you are of no earthly good"... and when you, or someone you love is dead, people will come on here and point out how noble you were for not killing anyone to defend yourself (or your child, your mom, your sister) I really hope you stop someday and reflect on these thoughts, and the possibility that all of the worlds best philosophers might actually have an edge on you when it comes to critical thinking.

• I need to point this out too- Andrew said: "A person who acts on the belief that he or she has a right to take someone's life should always receive our harshest rebukes--regardless of the circumstances." You are conflating the right to self-defense with a "right to kill", which no one in America has. First- it is possible to defend yourself without killing, and it is possible to act on the belief that <b>one has a right to defend themselves</b> against violence, with the end results sometimes being death. Because the end result is death doesn't mean the self-defender's belief was "that he or she has a right to take someone's life". Your assumptions are flawed from the beginning because you can't make distinctions between self-defense and aggression, or understand that circumstances DO play a role in these sorts of incidents. Denying the right of self defense forces people into the role of victims and empowers bullies, criminals and tyrants. And I find THAT immoral, Bub.

• Andrew- you really do have reading comprehension issues. No where did I state that the bouncer had a "right" to kill. I stated that self-defense is not immoral, as you have been calling it. There is another label for those who refuse to defend themselves in the face of danger. We usually call it "suicidal" which is more anti-social (imo) than defending oneself. Additionally- your question on human nature is distorted, weak and grade school. Asking if you're "unnatural" is the sort of thing a teenager would do. The vast majority of humans will never commit murder, but this doesn't mean that the darker aspects of human nature aren't ever present in all of us. Our morality as a species has evolved over the span of hundreds of centuries, but this doesn't mean individuals aren't capable of being as savage as our more animalistic ancestors. Not acting out on our unsavory urges doesn't make you "unnatural" nor does it make a killer "natural" if s/he does act on those impulses. This aspect of your "argument" is so weak, it's as if you know you're distorting it. It makes me think your 15. You are quick with your assumptions of other people's positions, and your holier than thou attitude is the sort of mindset that gave us Chamberlain's "Peace in our time". Hopefully, you'll never be in a position where your suicidal self-righteousness won't get YOU killed.

• Is "Bill" the same Sgt. Bill Palmer quoted by City Pages on this case? Because I was accused of being an ignorant turd for not reading something about the case that has not been mentioned in any public articles I've encountered on the topic. If it was mentioned on television, sorry, I don't have television, but that's hardly an issue with my reading abilities. If these Bills are one and the same, it's stunning that his reaction to my proposing an alternate opinion would be to insult one of those he's supposed to protect. I certainly, certainly hope not. And even if he isn't, is City Pages even pretending to encourage civility on this via moderation?

• Proud Nordeaster-- I don't pretend to be able to stop all violence and all killing by looking down on it. I do, however, think that your opinion that it was this guy's right to kill Gomez contributes to more violence since it ultimately means that killing someone is, sometimes, the right thing to do. I also think that there are very few killers and violent offenders who believe that their crimes were completely unjustified. And I can assure you that it's not my naivete that prevents me from going along with your presumptions about human nature. I am a human. I have never killed a person. Does that make me unnatural? Please stop making excuses for killers! A person who acts on the belief that he or she has a right to take someone's life should always receive our harshest rebukes--regardless of the circumstances. And to be clear, I do not hate the man who killed Gomez. I despise his actions and regret his decisions--chief among them being the choice to carry a machine designed for death. I don't wish to see him or his life eradicated. I do, however, passionately desire that what he did never be repeated. If that puts me in contradiction to the law, the Dalai Lama, world religions, and history's most notable philosophers, I'm fine with that; in the same stroke it distinguishes me from every serial killer and mass murderer.

• Andrew- let me see if I have this straight. You think the best way to reduce violence is to increase your level of hatred? That sounds like a real winner of an idea, because violence and hatred have never gone hand in hand anywhere in recorded history. [eye roll] You seem to think that because society views the killing of another person to be a serious offense that this in itself will stop people from violence or killing. That's an extremely naive position on human nature. Humans will not stop killing each other until the species is extinct. Since this is a basic fact of human nature, then killing in self-defense is not and never will be the immoral law you seem to naively think it is.

• We had another site which had "Bill saying" Bill says: Marna Gomez, Tirso's mother, told the Pioneer Press: "I love my son, and whoever this guy is who did this -- whether it was a bouncer or whoever -- all I have to say to him is 'I hope you can live with your conscience because you killed a special person,' " she said. "And you did wrong." Actually, he did everything right. Your son attacked him with a knife, he tried to defend himself with a baton, and when that failed he revoked your son's right to life. Perhaps if you look in the mirror, you will find it was you that did wrong, by raising such a son. Posted On: Tuesday, Jul. 13 2010 @ 1:25PM So I posted: How can you call multiple shots to the chest "he did everyting right"? If I shot someone in my house multiple times in the chest, even if they broke in I would be arrested. If for no other reason that to sort out the options for the police. Therefore I suspect the bouncer is a police officer for the following reasons. 1. He wasn't arrested. 2. His name hasn't been released. 3. He was carrying and knew how to use a baton.(no one went around a car) 4. He was carring a gun. 5. He had a permit for the gun (most police officer do.) 6. He knew how to effectivly use the gun. Which leads me to the rest via deductible reasoning. Seragent, Chief or Mayor: Get rid of this guy for the following reasons: 1. He is incopetent: He coudn't handle the suspect with the baton even though he was supposedly trained to use it. 2. He used eccessive force to apprehend a suspect (multiple shots to the chest)and KILL him. 3. He is litterly a loose cannon. Any police officer which would unload a gun multiple times into the suspect is a loose cannon and should be on the squad. This type or person is called a THUG. They are power hungry. He job is to apprehend the suspect not kill them. I don't agree that Tirso did the right thing going back to the bar but he definatally didn't deserve to get murdered. Yes I said murdered. Multiple shots to the chest (especially if it is a police offficer) is murder. Bill, is this your partner? I don't carry a gun, "Yet".

• The bouncer did try less than lethal force. it didn't work.... is he supposed to know the Vulcan death grip to put him out? How is it that you deal with drunken idiots with knives? You just take them on hand to hand because you're a "bouncer". Sorry, but the title doesn't come with super powers. Some of the best trained hand to hand fighters in the world have been killed by a yahoo with a knife. Most of the best trained fighters in the world would have shot this guy just the same. There have been extensive studies that show that a man with a knife can easily do great bodily harm on a man with a gun before the man with the gun can react (this would be one example). So, actually, he should have shot him before he got around his car with the knife. And yeah, if you need to use a gun to stop someone, you need to put two rounds in the chest to reliably do so. That is understood by just about anyone with any training at all. (clearly you have none) Doing any less so implies that you didn't need lethal force, but used it anyways. The law you see as immoral, Andrew, is considered a basic human right. The right to defend yourself with lethal force if necessary. The concept is indoctrinated into everything from the bible to every major religion to every free country in the world. (and the Dali Lama, of all peaceful and peace loving people to quote) I guess you know better about "morality" than any of them. Surely it is the whole rest of the worlds most notable philosophers that that are wrong. Because you have put so much research into the idea that you.... oh, yeah, blither on without even thinking. I trust Andrew, he knows best. LOLOLOLOLOL

• If that bouncer couldn't fend off a drunk man with a knife with his baton then he needs to explore different career options. I would almost have more understanding for a patron to have used a gun in this situation but a bouncer should have been able to handle the situation without using a gun. As someone mentioned, mace. Although I do think the baton could have done the trick. That bouncer is a PUSSY!!!!

• Family -- It is extremely distressing to me that dozens of men have died this year across the city due to fatal gunshot wounds and even more are mourning their losses. It is precisely my concern that friends and family who had nothing to do with this man's decision to take a knife to Grumpy's and especially had nothing to do with the bouncer's decision to carry a gun on the job are suffering today. It serves them no right. Bill -- I am under the impression that no life is less valuable than my own. I am also under the impression that the law you cited is immoral and contributes to the violence in our society through phrases like "reasonably believes" which are easily open to exploitation. Forgive my reading comprehension--I've been doing these hooked on phonix things and I'm not sure it's working. You've confirmed that, so I think I'll ask them for my money back. ConcernedCitizen -- I'd rather have had nobody die at all this weekend, which was definitely within the realm of possibility. As far as the Dalai Lama goes, I was only trying to flatter him by making his words a bit less revolting. I never said I thought he was infallible, nor do I consider him an authority on anything but Tibetan Buddhism, really. You interjected that assumption.

• That man was real stupid for going back to that bar and even stupider of bringing a knife. That is something everyone can agree with. Alcohol most likely played a huge role in that, not to say that it make it right. Who has someone they care about or maybe themselves who have stupid things as a result of too much alcohol. Maybe you have never pulled a knife on someone but have done something equally as stupid. Driving a car for instance. If you drove drunk and killed someone would that make you worthy of death? You know what the consequences are when getting into a car and you did it. Do you deserve to die because of something stupid you did while drunk or would you be a good person who made a lousy decision under the influence of too much alcohol<

• I hope all of you take into consideration that a man is dead and there are loved ones grieving his death. Please be sensitive to that!

• I live Ne and frequent many of the bars NE. I did not know either "victim" but am very affected by this. This young man did a very stupid thing, no doubt, and the bouncer is entitled to defend himself in any way necessary. My question is, was a gun necessary? and if it was, was shooting him TWICE in the chest necessary. That I don't know for sure but if I had to guess, NO!!! If you are a bouncer you should have some skills to fend off angry drunk people. That is your job right and probably a common occurrence in that job as well. I have a hard time believing that his only choice was to shoot him in the chest. Even aiming elsewhere would have been understandable. The fact still remains that if you weren't there, you don't know if what the bouncer did was right or wrong. My only hope is that was his only option.

• ummm.... yeah.... lets see if I got this straight.... You missed the part that completely describes how this guy attacked and wounded the bouncer with a BIG KNIFE before being shot dead? You missed the part about the bouncer first using less than lethal force and being cut in the process? You would rather lament the death of an innocent bouncer (and perhaps others) than to have a gun used to defend the innocent bouncer and patrons? The Dali Lama has repeatedly stated that killing someone in self defense is completely justifiable ... the reference to a gun is only because the gun was brought up in the question asked of him.... this isn't about "eye for an eye" (nor was the question posed the Dali Lama), it's about the right to live your life without being murdered by some jerk... trust me, the Dali Lama believes in that... You Andrew, need some study time.... then get back to those of us who know what were talking about and we'll let you back in the conversation

• "some people just need killin'......"

• ummm.... yeah.... lets see if I got this straight.... You missed the part that completely describes how this guy attacked and wounded the bouncer with a BIG KNIFE before being shot dead? You missed the part about the bouncer first using less than lethal force and being cut in the process? You would rather lament the death of an innocent bouncer (and perhaps others) than to have a gun used to defend the innocent bouncer and patrons? The Dali Lama has repeatedly stated that killing someone in self defense is completely justifiable ... the reference to a gun is only because the gun was brought up in the question asked of him.... this isn't about "eye for an eye" (nor was the question posed the Dali Lama), it's about the right to live your life without being murdered by some jerk... trust me, the Dali Lama believes in that... You Andrew, need some study time.... then get back to those of us who know what were talking about and we'll let you back in the conversation

• Ah Andrew, another reading comprehension challenged City Pages reader... Where exactly did I say the "victim" had a gun? As to what extent he was threatening the bouncer, he had already stabbed him once... As to proportionality, let me refer you to MN State code: 609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode. You seem to be under the sad impression that only if someone has a gun, you can use deadly force. But then again, you are not that bright, so enjoy your pitiful existence...

• There is a proportionality that anonymous, m, Concerned Citizen, and Bill are ignoring here. The victim did not point a gun at the bouncer (The Dalai Lama's comment at least has an "eye for an eye," resonance to it). We don't even know to what extent he was threatening this guy. And, by the way, if this article were about how a homicidal, knife-wielding maniac had carved up a bouncer and stabbed a bartender, then I would just as well condemn the knife-wielding maniac, because killing someone for ANY reason is unjustified, unnecessary, and the ultimate anti-social act. There is one absolute fact in this case: one man is dead because another man shot him, and that is an altogether too common reality that cannot be erased by any mitigating circumstances. I, for one, believe that the best way to diminish the recurrence of this reality is to despise the perpetrator(s) of this killing.

• Both sides are true. This man is dead because of conceal and carry. Many people in the bar are likely safer because of conceal and carry. The one truth is that we don't know what went down, and we have to rely on the witnesses (who are alive) to piece it together. It's far from a perfect world we live in. Conceal and carry makes me feel both safer and less safe at the same time.

• this man is dead because of conceal and carry laws??? are you kidding me??? if ANYONE runs up on you with a knife, you HAVE to assume your life and the safety of the club is in jeopardy, he took the necessary steps to insure the safety of himself and his club. the dumbass who ran back over there with a knife, what was he expecting to have happen? the bouncer to apologize and let him in? NOPE, CYA

• The right to lethal use of force in defense of great bodily harm or death is well established in every free country in the world and all major religions... I direct you to the Dali Lama for comment on this issue "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama,(May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate. Yeah, bummer, but he deserved to die... he really really did... and he's the only one who got what he deserved in that instance...

• Sorry Anonymous- Very few people who know what they are talking about would agree that the bouncer should (try to) shoot a knife wielding homicidal maniac in the leg, no matter what the size difference is. That, my friend, is a recipe for being killed by a knife wielding homicidal maniac... something I am sure the bouncer wished to avoid. If this man is dead because of concealed carry laws, then it is just as accurate to say that the bouncer would be dead without them.... given the choice, either the alcoholic drunken violent criminal (with a history of a dangerous cowardice streak)lives OR Bouncer doing his job lives, I would pick the latter.... every single time... So yeah... HERES TO CONCEALED CARRY SAVING ANOTHER LIFE (or several) How would you feel if this article was about how some knife wielding drunken maniac carved up and killed a bouncer before going into the bar and wounding several people before killing a bartender for refusing him further service? Cause it's that.... or concealed carry....

• i think if i was the bouncer that i would be scared in retaliation thats not cool he could of shot him in the leg or arm not in the chest what a pus for doing so..... Does anyone agreee with this what a poor excuse to shoot someone

• Bill ur a Dick if u can't disarm a drunk and your as big as that bouncer what a pussy he should shoot himself

• Krista, you are an idiot plain and simple. The dirtbag is dead, because he saw fit to threaten another person with grave bodily harm. If you were not such an ignorant turd, you would have also read that the bouncer in question tried to disarm him with a nightstick. It failed and the bouncer was then stabbed in the hand. At that point he revoked this idiots right to life, and I thoroughly commend him for that. Next time you are in trouble sweetheart, good luck to you. I hope in your perfect little bullshit world everything will work out just fine.

• Good though what a dumb ass law good job government fuk u

• This man is dead because of conceal and carry laws. We don't know the whole story, so it's ridiculous to start calling this self-defense when it's the bouncer's word against a dead man's. Also, I agree with Anonymous. Even if the deceased was completely belligerent and dangerous, there are many ways of defending oneself that don't involve ending a life. Baseball bat, pepper spray, etc. I don't want to give this guy a medal for killing a guy for what was probably one drunken mistake. We don't have the death penalty in this country for crimes like being a drunken idiot and making threats for a reason.

• That bounced should be charged with something shoot in the leg

• How many bouncers do you know that carry a gun? I thought it was odd that he had a gun in the first place. What about a baseball bat? This story is nothing short of tragic.

• The likely reason that murder was used instead of homicide is that while homicide may be more correct, murder gets more page clicks. Which in the end, is what matters since it's what fills the coffers.

• Grumpys was the safest bar in town that night. Any bouncer that can stop an enraged drunk with a knife, after being seriously wounded, is the kind of bouncer I want at my local bar!!

• this bouncer is a real jerk and is often making patrons mad by his macho crap. He needs to be fired.

• note to other dumbasses in the twin cities: dont f#ck with grumpys!!!

• All law enforcement jurisdictions use the Uniform Crime Report standards for counting murders. In Minneapolis, murder numbers do not include Justifiable homicide. According to Uniform Crime Reports, "In UCR, Justifiable Homicide is defined as and limited to: � The killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty. � The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen."

• Yup.... http://wcco.com/local/man.killed.identified.2.1799860.html WCCO news reports that Gomez attacked the bouncer with a knife repeatedly before being shot... that's not murder by any stretch of the imagination. That's called self defense.

• I'm also concerned about how so many news outlets classified this as a murder. So do we count murders in Minneapolis or homicides? If we count homicides, do we add one to the count when a police officer kills someone with justification?

• According to the Pioneer Press (an article posted a full 24 hours before yours)- *quote* Marna Gomez pleaded with her son not to leave their Columbia Heights home and return to a Northeast Minneapolis bar that earlier had refused to serve him. Tirso Gomez Jr. left anyway, and early Sunday the 24-year-old was shot dead outside Grumpy's Bar and Grill, his mother said. "I just asked him to please don't go," his mother said. "I screamed down the street, 'Don't go!' " *end quote* It sure doesn't sound like Mr Gomez was just out for a walk past Grumpys.

• &#64;concernedcitizen I think you are right. It sounds like a homicide but not a murder. It's an important distinction--homicide is death at the hands of another, but might be justified as, for example, self-defense. Murder, on the other hand, is a criminal taking of a life. Kind of like the distinction between "journalist"--a person who reports and finds out facts, and "CityPages Staff Writer"--who sits in front of a computer and makes faulty guesses about other people's journalism.

• I don't think you can classify either of these as "murder" at this point. It seems, with the bouncer incident at Grumpys at least, that this could be a self defense issue. He was, after all, released pending investigation. It is a bit erroneous to report things as "murder" when there is no evidence to suggest this. You seen to assume, from the fact that a gun was used, that it must be murder.

TotalComments: 75