Road rage: Robbinsdale cop shot in Coon Rapids
Author |
Message |
joelr
|
Post subject: FWIW, here's what probably is the wife's side of the story Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:07 am |
|
The Man |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am Posts: 7970 Location: Minneapolis MN
|
From here:
Quote: Ok, Lets get some facts stright here. My husband and I were minding our own when the person started driving careless riding on shoulders and cutting off other vehicles, all my husband did was honk the horn. The cop then cut us off, so my husband flicked him off, we continued, the "cop" drove on the shoulder and we pasted him, we had to stop for the street light and other vehicles that were in front of us, so there was no way to leave the situation. The "cop" pulled his weapon first on me after he said that is how people get hurt! My husband drew his weapon second in self defense. My husband has a gun permit and has had it for for a decade. He is the most level headed man you can met, he is a highly regarded person. The "cop" pulled his weapon first, I turned to my husband as I yelled gun and my husband did what any rational guy would do, and he protected his family. This "cop" said that this is how people get hurt (preferring to my husband honking and flicking him off) he reached for and pulled his weapon which by the looks of it was a glock. When his weapon came out and we couldn't get get a way my husband fired in SELF DEFENSE. yes, my children witnessed this and have told authorities that she seen the "cop" pull his weapon first. From the grapevine at school Robinsdale police have an unethical reputation, and I hold this opinion as well. For fun here lets look at something...IF, IF my husband pulled his weapon first, which he did not, but if he did why did the officer not shoot. There was really no yelling, it may have been louder at times when all three of talked at once but most defiantly there was not yelling. And for everyone calling my husband names do realize that my oldest hears it and she has every right to knows what happens with her dad. This case against my husband will be dismissed and the story will come out as this inexperienced officer who let his power and badge get to his head.
ETA: I'm not claiming that this is really the wife, or that, if it is, she's being accurate; I simply don't know. But it feels authentic to me -- and that doesn't mean that she's not spinning things, but that it feels to me like it's probably the wife.
_________________ Just a guy.
Last edited by joelr on Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
hammAR
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:07 am |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:54 pm Posts: 1941 Location: N 44°56.621` W 093°11.256 (St Paul)
|
Don't you think that the undercover cops cover is blown anyhow?
I can see him going to the local bar or pool hall where he is working and someone saying "Hey gimpy, why you walking funny? Reminds me of that undercover cop that was shot in both legs. Hey, what a coincidence.........."
Just a thought.............
.
|
|
|
|
|
tepin
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:08 am |
|
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:00 pm Posts: 1064 Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
Quote: ....Both vehicles turned east on 99th Avenue. The altercation continued, with yelling and shouting. As both cars approached Foley Boulevard, the officer pulled onto the shoulder. The Rendezvous pulled up slightly behind the officer's car on the driver's side....
Sounds like the guy in the Rendezvous was not a reluctant participant and could have retreated from the situation. I suspect charges will stick.
|
|
|
|
|
cobb
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:17 am |
|
1911 tainted |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:47 pm Posts: 3045
|
tepin wrote: Quote: ....Both vehicles turned east on 99th Avenue. The altercation continued, with yelling and shouting. As both cars approached Foley Boulevard, the officer pulled onto the shoulder. The Rendezvous pulled up slightly behind the officer's car on the driver's side.... Sounds like the guy in the Rendezvous was not a reluctant participant and could have retreated from the situation. I suspect charges will stick.
Depends, this account could be totally false. It doesn't jive with what the wife said and Joel posted above.
|
|
|
|
|
tepin
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:26 am |
|
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:00 pm Posts: 1064 Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
Oops.... I didnt get that far in my reading before posting.... I see your point in Joel's post.
|
|
|
|
|
cobb
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:29 am |
|
1911 tainted |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:47 pm Posts: 3045
|
tepin wrote: Oops.... I didnt get that far in my reading before posting.... I see your point in Joel's post.
We may be all embarassed when all is told. I have to believe, even by the wife's account that the husband added to the situation. But I think that right now the undercover cop is the one with legal problems. But again, we will have to see what comes out.
|
|
|
|
|
hypertech
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:35 am |
|
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:40 pm Posts: 363
|
All I can say is that if I were on a jury - it would have to be extraordinary circumstances for me to believe a person had no other alternative and was in fact a reluctant participant while driving their vehicle.
|
|
|
|
|
DeanC
|
Post subject: Re: FWIW, here's what probably is the wife's side of the sto Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:36 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am Posts: 5270 Location: Minneapolis
|
The PP commenter signed her post as "Mrs. Treptow". Why didn't she sign it "Rebecca Treptow?
If her comments are factual, Martin Treptow has had a permit for 10 years, since he was 25 (now 35). Possible, but seems unlikely to me.
_________________ I am defending myself... in favor of that!
Last edited by DeanC on Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
cobb
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:39 am |
|
1911 tainted |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:47 pm Posts: 3045
|
hypertech wrote: All I can say is that if I were on a jury - it would have to be extraordinary circumstances for me to believe a person had no other alternative and was in fact a reluctant participant while driving their vehicle.
The wifes account, again what Joel posted, said that they were in stopped traffic at a traffic light and could not drive away. But I wasn't there and if on a jury could not be so sure at this time.
|
|
|
|
|
jaysong
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:41 am |
|
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:09 am Posts: 983 Location: Brewster
|
DeanC wrote: It's a drag that somebody got hurt, but in the war of soundbites, even after this incident, light rail transit has still killed more people that permit holders in Minnesota.
What ever the facts turn out to be DeanC has an excellent point!
|
|
|
|
|
EricMN
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:47 am |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:30 pm Posts: 116 Location: Korea
|
IF what Joel Posted is from the wife, while she has made a statement, I believe doing so on a public forum is in error.
Could an instructor break this down part by part to evaluate if it's a justified shooting? (omitting the cop part?)
|
|
|
|
|
Pinnacle
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:51 am |
|
Designated waste of protoplasm |
|
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:41 pm Posts: 1807 Location: Western Burbs of MPLS
|
If the account is accurate (and I have nothing to the contrarythis is all of the supposed information as we know it for now) this raises a lot of issues. But is the account accurate? We do not know.
This will be more than interesting to watch and this sounds like a VERY bad situation to be involved with - bad for BOTH sides if this proves to be the truth.
Last edited by Pinnacle on Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
EAJuggalo
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:52 am |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:09 am Posts: 145 Location: Eagan
|
I think she got the point that she shouldn't be talking when the next 10 people posting after her said the same thing. I'm also somewhat skeptical that the poster was really the wife.
|
|
|
|
|
joelr
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:01 am |
|
The Man |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am Posts: 7970 Location: Minneapolis MN
|
EricMN wrote: IF what Joel Posted is from the wife, while she has made a statement, I believe doing so on a public forum is in error.
Could an instructor break this down part by part to evaluate if it's a justified shooting? (omitting the cop part?) Here's my analysis, fwiw, (and remembering IANAL, and that I'm assuming facts not in evidence, but suggested by the story, and by the supposed wife account):
Shooter fails on the reluctant participant/nonaggressor requirement: he was involved in a running/driving argument with the other guy, flipped him the bird, etc. I'm assuming that he didn't attempt to withdraw from the confrontation and communicate it to the cop.
Guilty, but of what? Felony assault, at the least. You're not allowed, as some book or other says, to escalate/continue a confrontation until it becomes life-threatening and then successfully claim self-defense.
Reversing that assumption -- assuming that he tried to get out of it, waved to the other guy and shouted "Just go. I don't want to do this," or something, and tried to drive away -- and that the other guy pulls up next to him, draws a gun and says something threatening, and further assuming that he's boxed in by other cars and can't simply drive away, he's now
1. A nonaggressor -- he tried to withdraw (in this hypothetical)
2. Reasonably in immediate fear of death or GBH'
3. In no position to use lesser force to stop the threat, and
4. Can't retreat.
Given that, lawful shoot.
_________________ Just a guy.
|
|
|
|
|
hypertech
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:09 am |
|
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:40 pm Posts: 363
|
cobb wrote: hypertech wrote: All I can say is that if I were on a jury - it would have to be extraordinary circumstances for me to believe a person had no other alternative and was in fact a reluctant participant while driving their vehicle. The wifes account, again what Joel posted, said that they were in stopped traffic at a traffic light and could not drive away. But I wasn't there and if on a jury could not be so sure at this time.
I would break every traffic law on the books before breaking leather if it would keep from having to do so ..........
I'm pretty sure Joel is on the right track. Even if the end shooting was justified in isolation, you aren't allowed to make a self-defense claim if you created the situation unless something happens to break the chain of events between the escalation and the shooting.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 146 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|