MostlyHarmless wrote:
And I think, as general advice from a carry permit instructor to a student, Andrew's comment is appropriate. But let's look at the specifics of the incident and see whether it still applies:
1. Unlike a statement made to a cop, Ersland's statement to the reporter isn't admissible in court.
2. The presence of multiple witnesses and physical evidence leave little room for doubt regarding what happened.
3. The nature of Ersland's work and the way the robbery took place make it difficult to second-guess his actions or ascribe ulterior motives (compared to, say, someone encountering trouble after leaving a party or drinking establishment in the wee hours).
Your points above are completely facetious. Have you really looked into what the Minnesota and federal rules of evidence actually are? Do you understand that in DGU you can face both criminal & CIVIL charges?