Lie First, Lie Always: Nancy Nord Bence’s Unbroken Streak!

It’s not quite a “Berg’s Law”, since it only pertains to a few groups, most particularly “Protect” Minnesota – the voice of the gun control movement in Minnesota – but it’s getting close.

Let be say this as clearly and unequivocally as I can:

“Protect” Minnesota has never made a single statement about guns, gun violence, gun laws, the 2nd Amendment, or law-abiding gun owners that is simultaneously substantial, original and true [1].  

Not one. 

Doesn’t matter if it was Heather Martens, or Nancy Nord Bence, or any of their constantly-rotating stream of lobbyists, lieutenants and creepy hangers-on; it’s still true.

Not one single statement that is simultaneously substantial, original and true. 

Case in point:  their “coverage” of the episode a few weeks ago where a (WHITE!  MIDDLE AGED!) Eden Prairie man got into a scuffle with a bunch of reportedly Somali teens at a gas station.

This was their first response to the story, going back a bit.

Now, I’ve been watching the story as well.  We don’t know much about the story, but we know a few things:

First – the man had no Minnesota carry permit.   Thank goodness.

Second – while the laws about displaying and threatening the use of lethal force are even more vague in Minnesota than the ones about the use of lethal force, it is under some circumstances legal to “brandish” a firearm to make a potential threat go away.    The law – a mixture of vague statute and very specific case law – is muddled and specific; while the juridprudence on the subject might not be designed to be a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to prosecutors, and from people to defense attorneys – but if they had set out to design such a system, it wouldn’t look a lot different.

Third – for purposes of my point, the actual behavior of the “Somali teens” doesn’t matter; they may have been utterly blameless (although groups of teenagers, especially with adolescent boys showing out for the girls, are pretty much always small, demented mobs no matter their ethnicity; given that the news reports mention nothing about their behavior, I’m doing to assume there’s something to hide).  So with that said – the video from Channel 4 seems to show that the man tried to retreat as the group of “teenagers” harried him.

Which means it’s not a “Stand Your Ground” case.

The guy may or may not have reasonably feared for his life and safety, thus possibly justifying brandishing a firearm – that, it seems, will be decided at trial.

Someone needs to tell the howler monkey – likely the gaffe-prone, not-especially-fact-obsessed Nord Bence:

As usual when “P” M makes a statement?   No.  This case wouldn’t be any different at all.


As we’ve pointed out countless times on this blog, there are four criteria you need to meet under current Minnesota law to use lethal force in self-defense; you have to reasonably  fear immediate death or great bodily harm, you can’t be the aggressor, you can only use the force needed to end the threat, and you have a duty to make a reasonable effort to retreat.

“Stand your ground” merely removes that last clause when you are anyplace you have a legal right to be.  Including McDonalds.

It doesn’t remove the other three criteria!

Was he in immediate life-threatening danger?    Was he the aggressor?  That’ll be decided at trial.

But – let me find the “Bold” button for emphasis:

He retreated!     He backed away from the “teens”!   Was it a “reasonable” effort to do so?  We’ll see what the jury decides.

But “Stand Your Ground” was not, and would never be, an issue in this case.

And if you get your information from “Protect” Minnesota, about this or any other case, you are not only less informed, but you’re participating in making our society dumber on this issue.

[1] You may find statements that fit two out of three criteria – things that are true and original but insubstantial; you can find many that are original and substantial but patently false.   But not one single statement they or their minions with their millions have made fits all three.  Zero.

13 thoughts on “Lie First, Lie Always: Nancy Nord Bence’s Unbroken Streak!

  1. A local defense lawyer with a good but not stellar reputation and bill rate could probably win acquittal on the ‘assault’ charges at a bench trial. There’s a bit of ‘process is the punishment’ going on here, though the guy is a misanthropic crank. The system tends to find these people eventually.

  2. It doesn’t help the white guy’s case that he reportedly (per a video) said, “Just give me a reason” to the haranguing teens. Clearly, his response needed to be, “Excuse me, chaps, but your pugnacious words and stance have put me in concern of my life and well-being. Could you please tone it down?” (If he had gone through CCW training to gain a permit, he might have learned that.)

  3. He is reported to have had a carry permit in the past, but not an active permit now

  4. Moral of the story? If you’re in Minnesota, and you’re being threatened by the feral offspring of refugees from 3rd world sh1tholes, and you deem the situation calls for the display of firearms, you might as well go ahead and use it.

  5. Also, if you’re in Minnesota and you’re going to employ the old “give me a reason” threat, the time to do it is before you pull out your smoke wagon; not after.

    Also, “you’re giving me a reason” is the proper verbiage for venues being video recorded.

  6. Curious.

    I wonder if this is the same crew of Somali Thugs well established young men who recently made news after being called out for food thieves at Chipotle.

    If not, could it be that thuggish behavior in fast food restaurants is a cultural thing?

  7. Good God man. These Somalis weren’t any more thuggish than other other group of teens would have been had they been insulted to their face in a MacDonald’s.

    This man has only himself to blame.

  8. I hope that the Dems develop an anti-gun litmus test for their pols & potential candidates.
    Nothing will lose them their majorities faster, at the federal and local level than putting gun control at the top of their agenda. Conservatives who detest their local GOP candidate will shovel money at vocally pro-gun candidate.

  9. John, Berg didn’t include a link to the video, so I’ll take your word on it.

    But having lived among em, and based on the consistently bad situations they are connected to in news accounts, my conclusion jump can be explained, if not forgiven.

  10. John, I just saw the link. The video clip doesn’t have any audio, and the newsie didn’t give any details about what was said.

    Where did you get the info on what was said?

  11. What’s not in the video but also not disputed is that the ‘incident’ was provoked by the fella snarking to the girls in the group that their app order wouldn’t go through because they were probably trying to pay with EBT. So this sets things off, makes the male teenagers there want to shove someone. That’s not an exotic scenario, it could be the response from any group of teenagers.

    Personally, I also have very large qualms and critique about the classes of people imported here. This is a legitimate discussion, I wont shame anyone out of it in the name of righteous high mindedness. But that guy is a crank misanthrope, he instigated it, and hes to blame.

Leave a Reply

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