I’ve been obeying Berg‘s 18th law pretty religiously. I mean, it makes sense – I wrote it, right?
So when I saw this case – of a Minneapolis homeowner who shot a burglar in her backyard, several weeks ago – I went quiet on the case for a bit.
The story went a little like this: the burglar entered the woman’s backyard, couldn’t get into the house, and then broke into the garage. The homeowner went to investigate with a pistol.
So far so good. W
When the guy didn’t leave, she then fired four warning shots.
As the story goes, the man then advanced on the woman, causing her to shoot him with a rifle (whose arrival on the scene may or may not have been related to her son, who had been standing guard inside the house with a rifle, perhaps the one used in the shooting).
Clearly there is some part of the story that isn’t public knowledge, yet.
The media responded the way they frequently seem to dec cases like this – with a borderline hagiography of the deceident. Worst, the case was apparently investigated shortly after the shooting, and the Hennepin County attorneys office – one of the more anti-gun jurisdictions in Minnesota Dash declined to prosecute. At which point, “the public“ Dash read “Nekima Levy Armstrong”, according to some rumors, the de facto arbiter of all justice in Hennepin County – went to the county attorney and demanded another look.
So, possibly at second glance, the results are back:
Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman says they don’t have evidence to disapprove a self-defense argument.
“While this case is tragic, there is not sufficient proof that the homeowner and/or her son are guilty of a crime,” a news release from the county attorney reads. “Based on the evidence provided to our office, it appears the woman and her son would have valid self-defense claims.”
Not sure what we don’t know about this case, but it’s got to be interesting.