Shoot a cop…
…get released?
Doesn’t happen, generally – unless the cop’s done something grossly wrong. Cops and district attorneys take “shooting at cops” pretty seriously. Rightly so.
We don’t exactly know what happened in the shooting incident on Highway 10 last week in which a civilian concealed-carry permit holder shot an undercover cop who was – according to the civilian – engrossed in road rage and pointing a gun at the shooter’s wife, as he drove his family in an SUV.
But the fact that the shooter was released without charges after a night in jail might, maybe, possibly, indicated that Minnesota’s latest concealed-carry permit holder to defend himself and his family might have been in the right:
Nearly 72 hours since he was involved in a rolling argument in Coon Rapids that led him to shoot an undercover police officer, Martin S. Treptow still believes he had little choice but to act as he did, his attorney Marc Berris said Saturday.
Endangered first by the officer’s “extremely aggressive” driving, and then stunned to see the officer point a gun at his wife, Treptow, 35, was simply trying to protect his family and himself, Berris said.
He added: “When all the facts come out, it’ll show he had absolutely no opportunity to deescalate the situation.”
Which is part of the burden that a citizen bears in a self-defense case; proving they weren’t a willing party to the conflict, that he/she tried every reasonable means to de-escalate, that the force was reasonable under the circumstances, and that there was a reasonable fear of death and/or great bodily harm – where “reasonable” means “a jury would buy it”.
So you be the judge:
[Treptow’s attorney Marc] Berris, who said he is in the midst of his own investigation of the incident, offered this account of the Thursday altercation:
Treptow, his wife and their two children were heading to St. Paul when they were confronted by a man driving erratically, including pulling alongside Treptow’s SUV and yelling at him and his wife.
At one point, Treptow honked, but the feud continued. It came to a head along 99th Avenue NW. near Foley Boulevard NW. as the two vehicles were stopped behind other cars at a stop light.
According to Berris, the man, who Treptow did not know was a police officer, reached out his window and pointed a gun at Treptow’s wife. Treptow, who had been working as a security officer until last month and who has a permit to carry his gun, quickly reached across his wife and fired at the car. The officer was hit in the legs and an arm.
Still fearing for his family’s safety, Treptow drove away from the scene while his wife called 911, Berris said.
They stopped at a nearby gas station, where police took them into custody.
Which is far from abnormal, even if the alleged victim isn’t a cop.
While Treptow left jail after an evening, the Coon Rapids police aren’t saying much:
But for Coon Rapids police officials, such conclusions regarding the Thursday afternoon shooting are premature.
Sgt. Tom Hawley said Saturday that investigators are still analyzing evidence and trying to compile and sort through conflicting accounts from the parties involved and several witnesses. He said it could be several days to weeks before their work is complete.
We’ll know more than that, soon.
Joel Rosenberg writes:
Note the shape of the defense: the cop was the aggressor; Treptow’s response was minimal initially; he was reasonably in fear of the immediate death or GBH for himself and/or his wife; he fled not out of mens rea but because he feared for his safety, and they immediately called 911.
Note how important that latter is.
Money quote: “When all the facts come out, it’ll show he had absolutely no opportunity to deescalate the situation.”
Just guesses: Treptow won’t get charged at all. Officer Friendly will end up seeking other career opportunities.
Stay tuned.
Certainly seems as though Treptow acted completely within the boundaries of reason and common sense. If the facts yet to be discovered or release continue to support his version of events he certainly should be let off the hook. I’m sure AC or some other moonbat will find something to bitch about, though.
I always give the cop, off or on duty, the benefit of the doubt. Generally they are in tough situations and react with what they feel is best at the time.
This, on the other hand, may be different. Don’t know if this is public information, but it would be interesting to see if the cop has other incidence like this. Nothing criminal, but aggressive behavior. Generally it’s a pattern (see the founder of Lifetime Fitness as an example).
I’m going to wait until more details come out on this one. What is interesting is the local media’s restraint on this one. Somethings up, I’m not sure what. I don’t feel any hysteria, yet. If a guy with a carry permit shot someone the local media and the anti-gun crowd would normally pounce on this and really stir the pot.
Great point Fisch….until I had read it here, I had no idea that the shooter was a CC permit holder.
LL
It’s probably the wife and two kids in the car that’s throwing the case a loop. Care to take odds that if it had been just Mr. Treptow in the car he’d still be in jail with a million dollar bond, charges filed, and the Strib and the local astroturf crowd calling for carry revocation?
Care to take odds that if it had been just Mr. Treptow in the car he’d still be in jail with a million dollar bond, charges filed, and the Strib and the local astroturf crowd calling for carry revocation?
Perhaps, but that’s an essential element of the case – or so it seems to me.
I’m no lawyer, But remember, you have to satisfy ALL of four conditions to have a legitimate self defense claim in Minnesota – can’t be a willing participant, must have made a reasonable effort to disengage, there must be a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to self or others, and that the force must be reasonable. Had it been just him in the car, a jury could “reasonably” believe (when told to by a prosecutor) that Treptow could have gunned the gas and gotten away, or that the car might have protected him. With a car full of family, the fear of death or great bodily harm escalated, while the chance to escape without anyone getting hurt had the cop fired dropped.
It shows what a tricky business armed self-defense is, even under the best circumstances.
“What is interesting is the local media’s restraint on this one.”
Might it be due to the fact that he was working as a security guard, and that somehow makes his CC permit more acceptable to certain types?
Nope; he’s unemployed, and — with some few exceptions — cops view armed security guards without POST licenses as wannabes, not members of the club.
As to the local media, WCCO was already calling him “the bad guy” (the quote marks aren’t accidental) within hours of the event; the Strib spun the story to make it clear that they wanted Treptow treated as the bad gun.
Here’s something interesting from the Pioneer Press account…
“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.
Meanwhile, the yelling match continued. Treptow reached past his wife in the passenger seat and fired more than one shot into the police officer’s vehicle,”
So the cops is in front and Treptow is behind. Treptow pulled up BEHIND the cop. What would have happened if Treptow would have simply not followed the cop?
It doesn’t say why Treptow pulled into that position. My understanding – and I don’t have time to confirm it right now – is that they were at a stoplight, and that Treptow really had no traffic-legal option but to be where he was.
I don’t know this for a fact, yet.
But I suspect, given that Treptow was released with no charges as opposed to upon posting bail after arraignment, that the reasons were good.
Doug, even well-intentioned, honest reporters — and the evidence, so far, is that the PP reporters have been just that on this case, as opposed to those at that waste of trees across the river — get facts wrong, particularly when they’re getting hurried, partial statements third-hand.
On your way home today, when you’re at a stoplight, look at a car in the lane to the right of you that you are slightly behind. If you’re not sitting high — like in an SUV and/or fullsized van or truck — visualize yourself two feet above where you are.
Now, see if you can point directly at the knees and and arm of the fellow driving the car to your right.
Nope.
Which means that that part of the story in the PP was incomplete. What happened between the time that Officer Friendly had passed Treptow, then braked quickly in front of him, then fallen behind to tailgate (again) and shout some more and when Treptow fired three shots is not yet publicly documented.
Let’s see if it will be.
I have no more knowledge of the facts than any other news reader. But I’m troubled by the cop’s story.
The Department says the cop is an experienced professional peace officer, presently assigned to work as an undercover detective. He was on duty working his undercover assignment at the time of the incident. He was in civilian clothes, driving a civilian car. He witnessed some bad driving conduct, or some yelling/finger waving, by a citizen. Then the story gets murky. The cop, what, pursued the citizen? Then somehow pulled around him onto the shoulder at the red light, and got shot? But the Department can’t reveal any information about the cop because it’ll blow his cover?
I’d like to see the Police Department’s Manual for Undercover Operations. If you’re 27 years old and have been licensed as a cop for only 4 years but you’re assigned to work undercover in Robbinsdale, it’s a fair bet you’re working narcotics.
If you’re on the way home from worming your way into the drug lord’s confidences and you see an idiot driving his Buick foolishly, what should you do? (A) pursue him waving your badge out the window, stop him and write him a ticket, potentially blowing your cover if any druggies drive by and recognize you as you’re writing the ticket. (B) break off pursuit, follow at a safe distance, call 911 on your cell phone, identify yourself as an undercover cop, and give the State Patrol the idiot’s license number so they can track him down and ticket him while you remain covert.
Even assuming the civilian was totally the instigator of the bad conduct, I can’t believe the cop exercised good professional judgment in accordance with being an undercover officer. Since the cop’s judgment is suspect even under the best possible scenario, it opens the door to speculate that the cop might have shared some of the blame for instigating this incident.
It could well be that the civilian was completely at fault. But it also could be that the civilian didn’t shoot a cop; he shot an a**hole who was yelling, driving like a maniac, and waving a gun around, who coincidentally later turned out to be a cop. World of difference between the two.
I’d like to see that manual, to know what the Department says the cop should have done.
.
Since we are bringing up local papers, I would like to share…..
Subscribe to the St Paul paper and am happy with it. Haven’t pruchased a Mpls in almost three years. The cartoon attacking Vietnam vets was the final straw.
But while at the Super America yesterday, a couple of stories caught my attention so thought I’d give it a try. But you know, I was reminded why I hate that paper so much. Front of the opinion section had a large fluff piece on Cindy Sheehan and what a great lady she is. Remember her? The nutjob who said Israel controls our government.
Chuck said,
“The nutjob who said Israel controls our government.”
Where did Cindy Sheehan say that?
“Just guesses: Treptow won’t get charged at all. Officer Friendly will end up seeking other career opportunities.”
If Treptow (and I’m certainly giving him the benefit of the doubt pending an investigation) acted in a legally justifiable manner, I hope to hell that Officer Friendly faces a stiffer response than just a new career.
One or both of the people acted in the wrong and resulted in guns drawn and one weapon fired. If Treptow wasn’t in the wrong, then the officer acted in such a manner where a civilian was in fear of their life/GBH to an extent where they justifiably shot the officer.
I have a hard time believing that that could happen if the officer were acting in a legal manner. If the officer did commit a crime, he needs to face the consequences the same as any other citizen.
The officer ALSO gets the benefit of the doubt pending an investigation but someone did something wrong in order for it to get to the point where shots were fired.
Where did Cindy Sheehan say that?
Sheehan blames Israel for Iraq.
Sheehan writes that son died for Israel – and for whom do soldiers fight, if not the government that controls the military?
Sheehan says the war benefits Israel.
Close enough for the non-obtuse.
Oh, yeah – could we not talk about Ms. Sheehan?
If Treptow (and I’m certainly giving him the benefit of the doubt pending an investigation) acted in a legally justifiable manner, I hope to hell that Officer Friendly faces a stiffer response than just a new career.
Me, too. Then again, I’m pretty cynical — I even believe that a cop could steal pot from a suspect, bake it in brownies to share with his wife, then call 911 because he thought he had poisoned himself . . . and just lose his job, without being prosecuted. I know that’s an absurd thing to believe could happen — but it did.
As to your rest, well, yeah. I can construct a hypothetical where it could happen, but not around this. If there’s a “road rage” incident leading to a shooting, at least one person did something horribly wrong.
“If there’s a “road rage” incident leading to a shooting, at least one person did something horribly wrong.”
That’s right, Joel. And I, for one, would have expected a trained, seasoned, veteran, law enforcement professional to exercise good judgment to avoid escalating a minor traffic incident into a life-and-death situation.
The fact that he didn’t makes me deeply suspicious of the purity of the cop’s actions leading up to the shooting.
I’m as willing as the next guy to give cops a break. Thin blue line, you know. But even if 99.99% of cops are angels, that leaves room for one or two knuckleheads. This guy could well have been one of them.
.
Guess the only thing we know for sure is that some lawful gun owner was doing something he wasn’t supposed to. So you’re all going “that does not compute!” with smoke coming out of the top of your heads?
Guess the only thing we know for sure is that some lawful gun owner was doing something he wasn’t supposed to.
You have it about 180 degrees wrong, Clown.
We know only that the lawful gun owner was released from jail without charges or bail, after shooting a cop. How often do you see THAT?
Answer: Never, if a shooter has done “something he wasn’t supposed to”.
And just in case you know a lawyer – what does that whole “no charges, no arraignment, no bail” usually thing mean when the action could be a felony or a class A misdemeanor? The obtusion filter is on.
I haven’t read all the published accounts of the incident but I’m extremely curious whether Officer Friendly was tested for drugs and alcohol when he got to the hospital – you would think with an officer involved shooting that would be the first issue the department would want clarified – unless of course his undercover work required he consume drugs with his suspects in which case he would be DUI and the department wouldn’t want that on record – but it would explain behavior.
You referenced a overtly anti-semitic website that takes Sheehan’s words and spins them to benefit their agenda.
Regardless of your being suckered, she didn’t say Israel controlled our government.
You referenced a overtly anti-semitic website…
…and two overtly left-leaning ones.
she didn’t say Israel controlled our government.
Given what she did say, it’s a distinction without a difference.
Of course, “left leaning” and “anti-semitic” are hardly mutually exclusive, these days.
Mitch, I know you said no Cindy Sheehan content….which is a good idea for your blog…..but to add something to my over-generalized statement much earlier. I based much of it on a speach she made in San Francisco before her son was killed. I don’t have the exact quote handy, but he had something to do with Israel pulling the strings. Bill O’Reilly played a video tape of this speach a while back. He received huge hate mail for showing that.
Okay, I will not misdirect the thread anymore.
More coverage of the story:
http://www.twincities.com/ci_6093943
http://toplistings.twincities.com/washington/ci_6088187
http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_6096526
http://www.kare11.com/news/ts_article.aspx?storyid=257015
Anything more recent?
Mitch, you suppose that cop was permitted to carry a firearm? And if he was “engrossed in road rage and pointing a gun at the shooter’s wife,” then that’s something you lawful gun owners aren’t really supposed to be doing, no?
Maybe you’d like to disarm the cops and arm all the citizens?
That AC just cracks me up.
A cop pointed a gun at a citizen, so obviously, the citizen must have done something to deserve it. This is from the “you must have done it or they wouldn’t have arrested you” school of thought. Nice to see an African-American who doesn’t buy into the whole “Driving While Black” myth of cops acting badly.
As far as disarming all the cops – not an entirely bad idea. After all, the Mayor is committed to getting guns off the streets to reduce shootings because, you know, it’s the guns that kill people, not the people holding the guns. And AC has shrewdly noticed that cops carry guns on the streets, which plainly floods the streets with guns and that obviously leads to shootings. So yeah, I guess in a Code Pink sort of way, it would make sense to disarm the cops. Fewer guns on the streets means fewer shootings means Utopia. Cool! Peace out, man! Hey AC, pass me that pipe – I need another hit of whatever you’re smoking.
.
Nate, obviously you suffer from idiocy. Let me try to make this simple for you.
1. The facts are unclear.
2. Both participants in the confrontation were lawfully armed.
3. Therefore, there was likely some improper behavior on the part of at least one lawfully armed person.
You ever think of going to that creationism museum outside Cincy, Nate? Sounds like it’s right up your alley, what with your wingnut politics and inferior intellect.
I understand where angryclown is coming from, but where is he going?
If the answer is “nowhere”, that’s fine, but judging from angryclowns present and past statements, I would guess that he is more likely to argue for police disarmament than anyone else. Either that or maybe angryclown is the one with smoke coming out of his head? 😉
Interesting, I see a different likely trajectory for AC’s line of reasoning.
A statement that is made a lot around here is that people who go through the hurdles to legally own and carry their guns tend to not act irresponsibly with them.
In Minnesota, we’re rather proud of the fact that no one with a conceal-carry permit has acted irresponsibly with their legally carried gun (we’re leaving the guy who shot the Nye’s bouncer out since he wasn’t carrying his gun when he was getting drunk and going home to get a gun would have equally accessible and equally illegal if he had a permit or not. Perhaps not the strongest argument, but a reasonable line of thought…)
Angryclown has just pointed out that both people involved were legal to carry concealed weapons.
I believe his point is that this combined with the fact that at least one of the two individuals did act irresponsibly and most likely illegally with a weapon means that a perfect record can no longer be claimed.
If it turns out that the person in the wrong was the police officer, I think an argument could be made that the fundamental fault leading to this shooting lies in our general treatment of the police as being a bit above the law. While I believe that this is a problem, I wonder how many supporters of conceal carry will agree with me.
For the record, I feel that the police should be held to the same – if not higher – expectations of following the law as regular civilians. I think that a number of social ills (including widespread disrespect for the police and the problems that stem from that disrespect) stem from the fact that the police are given more leeway to break the law and held to less accountability when they get caught breaking it than the rest of us are.
If it turns out that the person in the wrong was the police officer, I think an argument could be made that the fundamental fault leading to this shooting lies in our general treatment of the police as being a bit above the law. While I believe that this is a problem, I wonder how many supporters of conceal carry will agree with me.
I think I’ve got pretty good cred as a supporter of the MN carry law, and I certainly agree, and very strongly — and, in fact, know lots and lots of permit holders who do, as well.
Phaedrus wins a balloon animal!
Mitch, you suppose that cop was permitted to carry a firearm?
That’d seem reasonable, yes.
And if he was “engrossed in road rage and pointing a gun at the shooter’s wife,” then that’s something you lawful gun owners aren’t really supposed to be doing, no?
True, Clown, but you’re comparing oranges and tangerines.
Cops are “permitted” to carry guns, but their “permit” is very, very different than a civilian’s permit. Cops have many built-in protections, as befits their job. The law follows very different procedures for every stage of a lethal-force incident – drawing the gun, firing a shot, and hitting/killing someone. With cops, if I’m not mistaken (Joel?), the incident is treated as an internal department issue unless gross wrongdoing is found; with a civilian, the District or County Attorney is automatically involved. Cops are automatically represented in the internal investigation by a Police Union lawyer – civilians are on their own. Civilians have no arrest power. Cops are indemnified against many of the consequences of self-defense shootings in a civilians aren’t. And of course, shooting a cop is normally treated as a higher-class crime, with stiffer sentencing guidelines, than shooting a civilian. Just in case you know a lawyer or two, Clown, you could have ’em check up on that kind of thing.
In other words, you really can’t compare a civilian permittee with a cop. Legally they are in very different places…
…which tends to indicate, since Treptow was released without being charged or arraigned hours after shooting a cop, that the County Attorney has a pretty fair idea how things went down. Perhaps you could ask any lawyers or reporters you know, Clown, how that squares with normal cop-shooting cases.
Maybe you’d like to disarm the cops and arm all the citizens?
I think everyone should have selzer bottles. They’re funny.
While I believe that this is a problem, I wonder how many supporters of conceal carry will agree with me.
I think I’ve got pretty good cred as a supporter of the MN carry law, and I certainly agree, and very strongly — and, in fact, know lots and lots of permit holders who do, as well.
Yeah, I think I was making a bit overly broad of an assumption here. My bad, I apologize.
For the record, I get as frustrated with the actions/beliefs of groups like “Communities United Against Police Brutality” as I get with the actions/beliefs of the “Law and order, cops are pretty much always right” set.
Fair enough. But — please don’t trust me on this; check it out — you’ll find that there’s a healthy skepticism toward authority in general and possible abuse of police authority in the local gun community; see this for example, and follow some of the threads.
Or for that matter, this.
Me, I know a fair number of good cops, and like them a lot. But I don’t think that cops are always right — and, in fact, have taken the Chief of Police of the city of Minneapolis to court and proved an abuse of discretion, some years ago — and I don’t think that toleration for misuse of power is respected in the local carry community.
(And, that said, in lots of situations, I think it makes sense to put off judgment for a little while in a lot of cases; it’s how, as an observer you can end up on the right side of both Louima and Porter.)
With cops, if I’m not mistaken (Joel?), the incident is treated as an internal department issue unless gross wrongdoing is found; with a civilian, the District or County Attorney is automatically involved. Sure. Except that in some cases, it’s bounced up to the prosecutors even if minor wrongdoing is found; in others, it’s covered up even when gross wrongdoing is found. (Consider the case of Sharon Sayles-Belton’s driver shooting some poor woman in the butt.)
And, to further quibble, civilians do have arrest power, and it’s used frequently — a shoplifting arrest by a storeowner or security guard, say. I strongly discourage gunpoint arrest by civilians, as there’s huge legal issues that aren’t settled (and “test cases are for other people”), and serious tactical risks, as you may remember some guy belaboring in some class or other.
Cops are indemnified against many of the consequences of self-defense shootings in a civilians aren’t.
Absolutely. Not all, but many — absolutely. It’s one of the reasons that we really need to pass Tony Cornish’s “Stand Your Ground” bill; it’ll give civilians engaged in self-defense — whether or not they have to shoot to save their lives — additional legal tools that certain legal tools object to.
Argh. Mitch; my apologies — I screwed up the formatting on the above, and can’t fix it.
Although I can end the italics thusly, I hope.
I think I fixed it.
Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » The Ham Sandwich
Pingback: For Those Of You… | Shot in the Dark