Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Sun Apr 28, 2024 11:51 pm

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




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 217 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15  Next
 Road rage: Robbinsdale cop shot in Coon Rapids 
Author Message
 Post subject: FWIW, here's what probably is the wife's side of the story
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:07 am 
The Man
User avatar

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.

Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:07 am 
Longtime Regular

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............. :roll:

.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:08 am 
Longtime Regular

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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:17 am 
1911 tainted
User avatar

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.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:26 am 
Longtime Regular

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. :oops:


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:29 am 
1911 tainted
User avatar

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. :oops:

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.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:35 am 
Senior Member

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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: FWIW, here's what probably is the wife's side of the sto
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:36 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

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.

Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:39 am 
1911 tainted
User avatar

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.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:41 am 
Longtime Regular

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!


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:47 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

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?)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:51 am 
Designated waste of protoplasm
User avatar

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.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:52 am 
Senior Member

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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:01 am 
The Man
User avatar

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.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:09 am 
Senior Member

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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 217 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15  Next

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


 Who is online 

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

Search for:
Jump to:  


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group