Not to be negative, but this may not not be over. I still do not like how this was handled by either party. It does show how complicated situations can be. This story may be one that ends up in the next edition of "The Book".

But he can use the fact that the city didn't press charges as evidence of him being in the right. Civil suits don't require "beyond reasonable doubt" or absolute proof.

Let's not go that far, please, at least not yet.

Fair to say, though, that somebody shooting a cop and then being released without charges isn't exactly usual.

Don't forget, that just because he's been released it doesn't mean he can't be re arrested and charged at a later time.

I assume there is a statutory limit on how long before this crime can no longer be prosecuted? It’s my understanding that either that limit has to be reached or a court finds “not guilty” before the individual is actually safe from prosecution. After that, there could also be more significant charges that have no limits; murder for instance if the prosecuting attorney thinks he can make it stick.

It ain't over till it's over…………….Yogi Berra

From the "Pioneer Press" article:



If the Press article reporting is correct, this is the problem I have with Mr. Treptow's actions.

He stopped along side the undercover officer's stopped car to continue the arguement.

At this point, he no longer was a "reluctant participant". He should have kept on driving.

I see no reason in the article for the officer to pull a gun.

Neither Mr. Treptow's nor the officer's actions seem proper in this.

They (and we) are both lucky that no one was hurt seriously.

Ok, how's this:

If things go the way they seem to be going regarding this case, the antis won't be able to use the fact that there were no documented cases of self-defense by a permit holder as an argument against the carry law, like I see every year.

Without a doubt, it's bad that it happened.

Edit for clarity.

Why all this concern about this case when breaking news says Paris Hilton is going back to jail!! You people have your priorities wrong

A thought just occurred to me after seeing Mr. Treptow's mug shot... If arrested after a shooting, is it a strategically a good or bad idea to smile for the camera? People might make fun of a smiling mug shot, but if your face is plastered over the papers a smiling face might be a better image (as long as it doesn't come off as a smirk). Assuming of course you have the clarity of mind to smile for the camera.

Just another good reason to shave and put on clean skivvies every morning...personally I would have a hard time smiling after shooting someone, justified or not.......

.

Are we going to get more details or will the story just go away?

I'm betting the whole thing gets swept under the carpet.

Like it was said earlier, pretty strange to shoot a LEO and not get charged...

Well, OK!

Screaming Paris Hilton ordered back to jail

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/06/0 ... index.html

Notice that it's not in News, it's in Entertainment!

Is this what you had in mind?

Actually, that is what I was thinking of, looks better than this:



But as HammAR mentioned, smiling probably wouldn't be good either, I suppose that you'll have to live with whatever picture they take.

It's the headline news on the Drudge Report!!! Entertainment? I think not.

Sorry I couldn't resist. When Tom Delay was arrested the Dems couldn't wait to get their hands on the mug shot to use in political ads. They were sadly disappointed be the mug shot they got. That is the first thing that popped into my mind when I read your post on smile or no smile.