Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Wed Dec 08, 2021 4:09 am

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.  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 Long Ago LEO gets taken down... 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Long Ago LEO gets taken down...
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:22 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Yup, to all that.

Remember: it's okay to speculate about what the 911 call might have been, but that's all it is, at this point. If anybody really wants to know what happened in a given 911 call, you can obtain a transcript under the Data Practices Act.

Activist hat on: everybody should, at some point, get the experience of making at least one data practices request, and following through on it. It's good experience for you, and since many agencies appear to be unfamiliar with their responsibilities in responding to data practices requests, it's good training for your public servants.

MODERATOR MESSAGE:
The instructions for making a public data request are here: http://mgdpa.twincitiescarry.com

- Andrew Rothman, Forum Moderator

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Long Ago LEO gets taken down...
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:27 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:41 pm
Posts: 234
Location: Apple-Mount Farming-Ville
Long Ago LEO,

I'm working on getting the transcript for this as I am very curious how the incident was reported and how the dispatcher handled it.

Could you let me know the Approx time that this happened? Thanks.

_________________
NRA Instructor (BP, PPITH, PPOTH, Shothell + Metallic Reloading, RSO)
Certified Glock Armorer

MNbasecamp.com - Minnesota Outdoors Community


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Long Ago LEO gets taken down...
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:41 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
joelr wrote:
Activist hat on: everybody should, at some point, get the experience of making at least one data practices request, and following through on it. It's good experience for you, and since many agencies appear to be unfamiliar with their responsibilities in responding to data practices requests, it's good training for your public servants.


+, oh, about 50

I'll vouch on ALL counts of that statement.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Long Ago LEO gets taken down...
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:09 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 599
Long Ago LEO wrote:
...
They also promised to note on my 911 file not to respond with such urgency to similar calls involving my address.
...
.


I didn't see this point discussed. I would like to know if this is something that can be done for any permit holder who is on the correct side of the law? If not, shouldn't it be? I can't understand why a MN Permit to Carry doesn't send up a BIG RED FLAG to LEO's when they run an address, driver's license, license plate, whatever, that lets the LEO know what the deal is.

I'd prefer not to have any guns pointed at me, that isn't something I'll ever be ok with. I'd be after badge numbers, and pressing charges. I agree it ended up well, but you were staring down a muzzle for no good reason. One mistake and your family is without their husband/father due to an unnecessary level of confrontation.

To respond with urgency is questionable anyway. The Caller is just giving heresay, often times anonymously. Shouldn't the officer investigate for at least 5 seconds before being willing to hold somebody at gunpoint? For all he knows the caller has it out for the "suspect".

Please share your thoughts.

_________________
EJSG19


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Long Ago LEO gets taken down...
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:50 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
EJSG19 wrote:
Long Ago LEO wrote:
...
They also promised to note on my 911 file not to respond with such urgency to similar calls involving my address.
...
.


I didn't see this point discussed. I would like to know if this is something that can be done for any permit holder who is on the correct side of the law? If not, shouldn't it be? I can't understand why a MN Permit to Carry doesn't send up a BIG RED FLAG to LEO's when they run an address, driver's license, license plate, whatever, that lets the LEO know what the deal is.


I believe the law is specifically written so it does not return unless requested. If Kimberman is hanging around, I'm sure he'll be happy to explain why he and others wrote it that way. :wink:

-Mark

ETA - I could very well be wrong, as the records section of the carry law (624.714) doesn't specifically spell that out..but I thought there was a legal nuance in there. Regardless, it's an extra check the officer must request. Which for privacy purposes is fine by me.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Long Ago LEO gets taken down...
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:12 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 599
I can see that, and I understand the potential negative side of having the "Permit Flag" cross referenced to other indices of information.

But if people are getting guns pointed at them, for peacefully going about their business, in accordance with the law. Something seems a little "not peachy" about that situation.

I think the problem lies with the practices of enforcing the law, not the law itself. But if anyone wants to clarify that matter, go ahead. Maybe if an informant calls in with "Man/Lady with a gun," the standard procedure might be to check if the guy has a permit before threatening his life. According to the 4 rules, the officer is obviously willing to destroy his target at this point. So the LEO's are saying its a justifiable shooting, if they know a person is carrying a gun and thats all? No crime observed?

The presence of a holstered gun alone shouldn't trigger an officer to pull out a gun/taser. Necessary force and all that...

_________________
EJSG19


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Long Ago LEO gets taken down...
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:33 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
EJSG19 wrote:
I'd be after badge numbers, and pressing charges.
Badge numbers you can get, pretty much always. Pressing charges? Not so much. That's a misnomer -- although it's often used. The putative victim doesn't press charges in a criminal matter; in Minnesota, the County Attorney's office does, for felonies, and the City Attorney's office, for misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors. If you think you've been the victim of an assault, say, or a terroristic threat, it isn't you who gets to decide if charges are filed or a grand jury is assembled. A prosecutor does. I won't say that it never happens if the putative assailant is a police officer, but it's a rare thing, and in the case of some cop drawing down on somebody while responding to a 911 call, I'm just this side of certain that it never happens, and utterly certain that it almost never happens. (Whether or not it should in a given case is another matter; that would, it seems to me, depend on the facts of the case.)

But in a situation where a cop was too simply too quick and eager to be yanking out and pointing the hardware -- and I'm not saying that this was such a case -- that just isn't going to happen.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Long Ago LEO gets taken down...
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:29 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 599
joelr wrote:
EJSG19 wrote:
I'd be after badge numbers, and pressing charges.
Badge numbers you can get, pretty much always. Pressing charges? Not so much. That's a misnomer -- although it's often used. The putative victim doesn't press charges in a criminal matter; in Minnesota, the County Attorney's office does, for felonies, and the City Attorney's office, for misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors. If you think you've been the victim of an assault, say, or a terroristic threat, it isn't you who gets to decide if charges are filed or a grand jury is assembled. A prosecutor does. I won't say that it never happens if the putative assailant is a police officer, but it's a rare thing, and in the case of some cop drawing down on somebody while responding to a 911 call, I'm just this side of certain that it never happens, and utterly certain that it almost never happens. (Whether or not it should in a given case is another matter; that would, it seems to me, depend on the facts of the case.)

But in a situation where a cop was too simply too quick and eager to be yanking out and pointing the hardware -- and I'm not saying that this was such a case -- that just isn't going to happen.


That is valid, of course, and thank you for the clarification. I guess what I meant was, I'd be doing everything in my power to bring about some kind of legal justice. The results, I'll allow, would likely be nothing short of a Congratulatory celebration for the LEO involved and I'd just be out of pocket, or physically worse off in the worst scenario.

A person can still go to civil court, but then I know nothing of what potentail results would come of that, again, likely nothing. But that doesn't mean its right.

I see I have an inaccurate figure of speech to get out of my vocabulary though.

_________________
EJSG19


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Long Ago LEO gets taken down...
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:32 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
EJSG19 wrote:
joelr wrote:
EJSG19 wrote:
I'd be after badge numbers, and pressing charges.
Badge numbers you can get, pretty much always. Pressing charges? Not so much. That's a misnomer -- although it's often used. The putative victim doesn't press charges in a criminal matter; in Minnesota, the County Attorney's office does, for felonies, and the City Attorney's office, for misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors. If you think you've been the victim of an assault, say, or a terroristic threat, it isn't you who gets to decide if charges are filed or a grand jury is assembled. A prosecutor does. I won't say that it never happens if the putative assailant is a police officer, but it's a rare thing, and in the case of some cop drawing down on somebody while responding to a 911 call, I'm just this side of certain that it never happens, and utterly certain that it almost never happens. (Whether or not it should in a given case is another matter; that would, it seems to me, depend on the facts of the case.)

But in a situation where a cop was too simply too quick and eager to be yanking out and pointing the hardware -- and I'm not saying that this was such a case -- that just isn't going to happen.


That is valid, of course, and thank you for the clarification. I guess what I meant was, I'd be doing everything in my power to bring about some kind of justice. The results, I'll allow, would likely be nothing short of a Congratulatory celebration for the LEO involved and I'd just be out of pocket, or physically worse off in the worst scenario.

A person can still go to civil court, but then I know nothing of what potentail results would come of that, again, likely nothing. But that doesn't mean its right.

I see I have an inaccurate figure of speech to get out of my vocabulary though.
The skeptic in me thinks that the reason that that particular figure of speech hasn't died out is because it suits the powers-that-be for folks to think that they have power that they don't.

Bit of evidence: the official police report form in St. Paul asks if the victim is "Willing to press charges?" They know full well that the victim doesn't get to make that call.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Long Ago LEO gets taken down...
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:44 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 599
I take it there isn't an effective system of check's and balances here. As in, you could be truthfully wronged, but if the Prosecutor has a reason or motivation for not pressing charges, you are simply screwed.

At least thats what I am gathering.

_________________
EJSG19


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Long Ago LEO gets taken down...
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:20 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
EJSG19 wrote:
I take it there isn't an effective system of check's and balances here. As in, you could be truthfully wronged, but if the Prosecutor has a reason or motivation for not pressing charges, you are simply screwed.

At least thats what I am gathering.


NOW you're reaching the right level of cynicism! :mrgreen:


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Long Ago LEO gets taken down...
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:24 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 599
Sarcasm, skepticism, and cynicism were three things I was born with.

The good sense to know when to use them is something I'm still working on.

_________________
EJSG19


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Long Ago LEO gets taken down...
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:06 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:19 am
Posts: 810
Location: Northern MN
EJSG19 wrote:
Maybe if an informant calls in with "Man/Lady with a gun," the standard procedure might be to check if the guy has a permit before threatening his life.


If they KNEW in advance that it was LALEO's house, and it was HIM, that would make sense. However, it was a "generic man" with a gun, not LALEO at his house with a gun, call

Quote:
According to the 4 rules, the officer is obviously willing to destroy his target at this point. So the LEO's are saying its a justifiable shooting, if they know a person is carrying a gun and thats all?


No, they are saying, " I am going home at the end of my day under my own power, and I am WILLING to do what it takes."

Quote:

The presence of a holstered gun alone shouldn't trigger an officer to pull out a gun/taser. Necessary force and all that...


I try not to bring merely my taser to a gunfight. :shock:

_________________
Proud, Service Oriented, Rural LEO, or "BADGED COWBOY"
Certified MN Carry Permit Instructor


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Long Ago LEO gets taken down...
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:56 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
Yup, gotta say, I'm not faulting the response here. There were enough other odd things that were likely reported to get the officers' pucker factors up a little.

The trick is to make sure that any of us would get a similar treatment to what LALEO got when they realized he was in no way a threat.

-Mark


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

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 3 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