Aldi Customer Who Shot Robbery Suspect Sues to get Gun Back

WI: Aldi Customer Who Shot Robbery Suspect Sues to get Gun Back

WI: Aldi Customer Who Shot Robbery Suspect Sues to get Gun Back

Nazir Al-Mujaahid certainly sticks to his guns.

For the fourth time, Al-Mujaahid has gone to court to regain possession of a firearm held by the police, in this case, the 9mm handgun he used to foil a robbery attempt at a Milwaukee grocery store in January. Al-Mujaahid shot and wounded a man who was waving a gun at cashiers and customers

It was the first instance of someone with Wisconsin’s new permit to carry a concealed weapon using his gun to defend himself or others during a crime, and prosecutors cleared Al-Mujaahid, 35, of any wrongdoing.

But they still have his gun, which is being held as evidence in the case of the two men charged with trying to rob the Aldi store where one of them encountered Al-Mujaahid.

Continue reading at Journal-Sentinel

, , , ,

  • James Dolven

    What kind of evidence do they think it is? I mean, he wasn’t part of the robbery; he was the one who broke it up. His gun had nothing to do with the attempted robbery.

  • 125885

    Might need to report it stolen. 

  • thisismyspamemail

    Hey…give him his gun back. I hear Aldi is open 7 days a week now…..:S 

  • Fortec1

    Does it surprise you the Milwaukee Police Department has not returned the firearm to its rightful owner yet. Come on people. We all know they have an illustrious record for doing this. Not the first time and certainly not the last. Next time carry a crappy beat up firearm for personal carry, leave your good one home and see how fast they return it.

  • GovtColt847

    The police already know who’s firearm it is and where the bullet came from.  Why do they still need that as evidence?  Give him back his firearm so he can protect himself again.

  • What a mess this is!   I can understand all the weapons involved being initially confiscated but since he’s been completely exonerated from any wrong doing and they must have conducted all the ballistic tests they needed to conduct already.   Why is his weapon still locked up in an evidence locker?   It should be given back to him.

  • DennyRec

    It proves to me, the state was right in allowing to Carry Concealed. With someone waving a gun around in a robbery, can’t say what would have happen, without Al-Mujaahid wasn’t there. If he has been cleared of weigh doing, give his firearm back to him. Thank god he was in the store.

  • Josephbigbob

    If the gun owner was found to be within his rights, they should do like “Car Dealerships” that work on your car… They should give him a “Loaner” till the case is settled!

  • blogengeezer

    Had a classic weapon stolen from the RV, night before an extended early morning trip from NM. Filed with Ins Co for payment, based on depreciated value of over 25 yrs. Received fractional value on the dollar. Many years later, received a letter from ‘evidence’? saying to come pick up the Stolen weapon…after passing all background checks. One, well used magazine, returned on first trip to evidence. Later trip, weapon was handed over (outside the secured building) ……with minimal bureaucratic ‘flourish’.

    Weapon had been new condition, in box classic, when stolen. Obviously had been Used extensively, over the years in criminal/police possession, but still working when received, minus one magazine.   EDC now, All agencies know it’s number, still holds group, but no longer the ‘cherry’ it once was.

    BTW During routine City traffic stops, APD officer Now knows we ‘carry’…. Before he exits his vehicle. Using guarded, cautious approach, immediately Asks about Our weapon,…. with his hand firmly on.. His.

  • This is a yet another reason to have more than one firearm!    When the government indefinitely warehouses the first one . . . you just break out the next one and you can go about your business again.

    (Someone once asked an old Texas Ranger why he carries a .45 . . . he said because they don’t make a .46 !!!)

  • Sn2112

    guess the police think they can charge the robber with the crime of getting shot. SO they must need his gun as a wittness?