Heather Martens: “Round Up The Usual Suspects!”

Heather Martens – “Director” and likely sole member of “Protect Minnesota”, and sometimes ad-hoc legislative representative from House District 66A – has sent out a fund-raising email.

Because trying to squat on peoples’ civil rights isn’t cheap, even if you do it badly.

And in this email, Martens – who has never, not once, uttered a single, substantive, original true statement about the Second Amendment, gun owners or guns in her career – gives us a little surprise.

Here’s the fundraising letter:

Dear Friend,
In Colorado on Halloween morning, a woman called 911 when she saw a black man walking down the street. During the six-minute call, the dispatcher lectured the caller on the fact that it is legal in Colorado to be a black man walking in public. Then black man started shooting people. He murdered three people before being killed by police, when they finally arrived on the scene.
Can you support Protect Minnesota on Give to the Max Day, to fight the laws that enable such black people to perpetrate such tragedies?
[Several paragraphs of bla bla bla about PMs purported accomplishments]
Thank you for all you do,

Heather Martens
Executive Director
Protect Minnesota: Working to End Gun Violence

“Wait – did Heather Martens actually send out a letter saying that a woman called in to report a black man walking down the street?”

Of course not.  Even a director at a PC non-profit can’t get away with that – unless they’re talking about Ben Carson or Tim Scott.

No – where you see references to “black man” in the letter above, fill in “a man carrying a gun”.  Here’s the actual fundraising email from Martens.  In the episode Martens writes about, a woman called 911 about someone openly carrying a firearm.  The 911 operator told the woman that it’s legal to open-carry in Colorado…

…and something else.    This story has a twist at the end.

Put a pin in that.  We’ll come back to it.

Then, six minutes into the 911 call about a man carrying a gun, something illegal happened – the man started shooting.  People died.  It was a tragedy.

But here’s the rub; Martens wants the police to respond to someone doing something they have every right to do, in a place they have every right to do it.  And they want them to do it when they know full well that the overwhelming majority of people who open-carry firearms are utterly and completely legal, and will never break a single law.

Martens thinks the police should respond to her fear, her paranoia, and her bigotry about people doing what they do, utterly legally, because of her paranoid assumption that a guy with a gun is a crime waiting to happen – which is not even a little bit different than assuming a black guy is a crime waiting to happen.

And that alone is reason to mock the hapless Martens.

But there’s more.  Heather Martens also lied.

Details, Details:  Buried further down in the fundraising letter, we see this little bon mot; emphasis is added:

:45  Naomi Bettis calls to report that she sees a man on her street carrying a big black rifle and  several cans of gasoline.  Over six minutes of conversation, she relays to the dispatcher the activities and a description of the man, noting that he had gone into another building and then emerged also carrying a handgun. She tells the dispatcher that she is “scared to death.”

So it turns out that Ms. Bettis not only called in to report the legal and overwhelmingly unremarkable fact that the man had a gun, but also the fact that he was carrying gasoline and acting suspiciously.

As, by the way, she should have.

And then the dispatcher responded…:

The dispatcher relates to her “It is an open carry state, so he can have a weapon with him or walking around with it.   But, of course, having those cans of gasoline it does seem pretty suspicious, so we’re going to keep the call going for that.”

So in other words, the police responded to Ms. Bettis’ call, exactly as if they’d have responded to the killer’s legal behavior.  The dispatcher acted correctly, and the police responded to the part of Ms. Bettis’ call that actually addressed something objectively and legally worthy of a response given the facts at the time, exactly as they’d have done if carrying the gun had been the  act they responded to.

Martens lied about the content of the phone call, and about the police response, to give the misleading impression that Colorado’s open carry law led to the deaths of innocent people.

It’s misleading, and it’s cowardly.  It’s a lie.

And yet the news media uses her as a source, without question.

Question For The Media:  It’s not a new one.  It’s the same one I ask every time Martens pulls a stunt like this.

When I was a reporter, we learned that when a source burns you, especially multiple times, you stop using them as a source.  At the very least, you get lots of corroboration.

Heather Martens has burned you.  She’s burned you  so often that the parts of the Minnesota media that care about accuracy and credibility have quietly started downplaying, or burying, her side of the story below that of credible sources like Joe Olson, Andrew Rothman and Bryan Strawser.

But if you’re one of those who still puts Heather’s stuff out there unquestioned, I have to ask you – why?

Ignorance?  Call me.  Email me.  I’ll show you the problem.

Not ignorance?  Then I really wanna talk with you.

7 thoughts on “Heather Martens: “Round Up The Usual Suspects!”

  1. Dear Heather (and DG),
    So what you’re saying is “When seconds count the police are only minutes away”! Thanks for making our point for us.

  2. It’s hard to be a gate keeper.

    People just don’t appreciate the effort that goes into keeping them outside the gate.

  3. Also, from the story Martins mangles:

    “Carrying a rifle, especially a military assault rifle, in the public arena is not normal behavior…”

    It’s also a felony, unless you hold a Class III FFL license, which means you have been vetted by the FBI, because military assault rifles are selective fire. Given the fact that the shooter, Noah Jacob Harpham, was a recovering alcoholic, one could guess he wouldn’t have passed the background check.

    Also, from the original story in the local newspaper [emphasis mine]:

    “Usually he smiles. He’s warm,” she says, adding he worked for Progressive Insurance, which he told her had recently cut his hours. Just days ago, Harpham helped his landlord unload lumber — the same lumber he set fire to inside the building, Lundquist says.”

    Also, from CBS:

    “Witnesses say Harpham had a rifle in one hand and a revolver in the other when he killed a bicyclist who begged for his life as the shooter wordlessly fired on Saturday.”

    Open carry does not mean you walk around with a handgun in your hand.

    There is always more to the story than you’re going to hear from leftist slobs.

    All that withstanding, this is still more reason to discourage Paulbots that feel the need to tote their AR’s to the grocery store, or the fricking airport (http://wgntv.com/2015/06/04/georgia-man-legally-carries-ar-15-rifle-into-airport/), to prove they can.

  4. Too bad the caller wasn’t herself legally armed. A Good Gal with a Gun might have been able to prevent the shooting. Sounds like an argument for more concealed carriers.

  5. Used to live in Colorado, and the legality of open carry was always countered by the fact that a lot of police officers would have a chat and perhaps arrest you for creating a disturbance. The gas cans would also be seen as a sign of mental illness, which would be another reason for the constabulary to interview you, not to mention multiple weapons, one of them being a rifle.

  6. Pingback: Heather Martens: “Round Up The Usual Suspects!” | Freedom Is Just Another Word…

  7. In Costaguana, a man who does not openly carry arms in public is addressed as woman, and is sometimes enjoyed as a woman is enjoyed.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.