Joel Rosenberg – firearms instsructor to the stars – has been involved in an ongoing kerfuffle with the City of Minneapolis. And when I say “kerfuffle”, I mean “series of intricately interlocking kerfuffles” complex enough to warrant a book of their own (which one might expect Rosenberg, a science fiction writer with a long bibliography, to be working on).
Last month, he got into a kerfuffle – I guess it’d be a “sub-kerfuffle” in this case – with Minneapolis Police Department Sergeant William Palmer when he went to a pre-arranged interview with Palmer at the MPD headquarters. He was carrying a number of handguns openly.
Here’s the video of the event (most of the action is right up front):
Now, “Erin Carlyle” at the City Pages – former alt-journalism powerhouse, now a glorified small-college newspaper – ht tackles the story in a way that’d do the late Twin Cities Reader’s Margarete Grebe proud in terms of pure incurious superfluity.
Because besides the names of the people involved and the location of the incident, Carlyle gets pretty much everything wrong:
Joel Rosenberg tried to bring a gun into the Minneapolis Police headquarters and the cops wouldn’t let him.
Now Rosenberg is accusing the cop who took his gun of assault.
Er, yeah. We’ll come back to that.
Earlier this month, Rosenberg, who says he is ascience fiction writerand handgun instructor,
…which is something he “says” because he is a sci-fi author of some renown, and one of the state’s leading handgun instructors – including mine.
paid a visit to the MPD chief’s office to pick up some documents he’d requested. Sgt. William Palmer, the public information officer, saw that Rosenberg was packing, and asked him to dump the gun. Rosenberg refused. He insisted he had the right to wear his gun.
Palmer explained that a court order prevented him from carrying the gun. Rosenberg disagreed.
So Palmer physically took the gun away from Rosenberg and unloaded the cartridge. He handed it back when Rosenberg agreed to put the gun in his car.
And if you left it right there, it’d seem like a Catskills comedian’s joke; “A cop and a gun nut walk into the lobby of the cop shop…”
But Ms. Carlyle didn’t apparently see fit to report that Rosenberg’s “accusation” resulted in Rosenberg walking away from the event scot-free, but Palmer looking at potential legal nastiness.
Ms. Carlyle apparently either didn’t bother to check that out, or think it was important for her smug, cossetted, know-it-all liberal audience to know it.
What’s the rest of the story?
More tomorrow in Shot In The Dark.
Now, “Erin Carlyle” at the City Pages – former alt-journalism powerhouse, now a glorified small-college newspaper
Mitch, I edited my small college’s newspaper. We had significantly higher standards than City Pages does.
Cheers in advance for Joel’s side of the story – but I hope you will do a fair job of telling all sides, regardless of cheers for Joel. This might need popcorn as an accompaniment….
(Pssst….Mitch? Are you the only ‘star’ to whom Joel is a fire arms instructor? I think you are a star, of course. Just wondered who the others were.)
Is it entirely impossible that the police didn’t have a court order? It’s not like Hennepin County courts have been at all proactive in enforcing the MPPA, after all.
Now it’s not a BINDING court order, as it’s explicitly contrary to state law, but there could be a court order.
And that said, incredibly poor tactics to walk up and do that…..it’s not like the author of the best book about the MPPA just might know how to carry concealed and make that a possibly fatal miscalculation, after all.
“So Palmer physically took the gun away from Rosenberg and unloaded the cartridge.”
Sgt. Palmer sat down with a couple of pliers and disassembled the single cartridge with which Rosenberg had (apparently) loaded his gun, and poured out the gunpowder?
Seems an odd response to such an imminent threat.
Well, I’m not a star like the guy who uses my name, but Joel was my instructor as well.
Are you the only ’star’ to whom Joel is a fire arms instructor?
I could name another. But I said I wouldn’t. So I won’t.
Doggone, absent a seriously compliant judge and jury, I dare suggest that Mr. Palmer’s counsel is going to have a bit of difficulty arguing against a videotape and the plain text of the MPPA, which does not say that people may not carry in police stations. There are some cases where, logically speaking, there really isn’t much of “another side” to tell, and this is appears to be one of them.
No brag, just fact: I could easily name two dozen. But they’re entitled to their privacy — I never, ever named Mitch as one of my students until he did so publicly.
Yeah, and wait for tomorrow. I think I’ve got some hint as to what’s coming.
And we really don’t want to go tagging Mitch as a “star”. We need hi to remain humble and lovable. Much like Underdog.
Minnesota Statute 624.714 – Subd. 23: No sheriff, police chief, governmental unit, government official, government employee, or other person or body acting under color of law or governmental authority may change, modify, or supplement these criteria or procedures, or limit the exercise of a permit to carry.
As usual, Scott cuts to the heart of the matter.
I never realized I was a “star”!
And, it sounds like Sgt. Palmer needs to brush up on his statutes.
Isn’t Minneapolis a Santuary City.
So apparently the police won’t enforce laws – but they do get to make up their own ones.
Shame on the Mpls PD if this is as it appears.
So…….Mitch, since this appears to be a very one sided story all in favor of Joel — and I’m cheering here for Joel — HOW is the research you were going to do into the Crow Wing County voter fraud coming?
Because my research – you know – FACT CHECKING – shows that
1. there was ONE group of disabled people, not 4,
2. there were far fewer people with disabilities than claimed by Montgomery Jensen,
3. they were all legal voters who have voted before, and
4. the office of the auditor and staff is asserting there was no misconduct by the staff assisting the disabled
5. these were not ‘mentally incompetent’ people – they knew who they were voting for and had reasons WHY they wanted to vote for them
6. Jensen seems to have different ideas than the MN statute about who these people can choose to assist them
I believe that Chip Cravaack owes some disabled people an apology for having wrongly showcased and praised Montgomery Jensen for insulting them with the way he described those people. A congressman should learn to research all sides of an issue – or accusation – before taking a position…or a Congressman-elect.
Another Voter fraud claim fizzled Mitch
Good point, Dog Gone. And while we’re changing subjects, are you now ready to admit that Mark Dayton’s “plan” to balance the budget is a flat-out lie intended to raise taxes on middle-class voters who were deceived by the advertising bought by unions and trust funds in blatant violation of principles of fair play and honest dealing?
Or should we drop the calumny and stick to the point of this post?
Because my research – you know – FACT CHECKING – shows that
1. there was ONE group of disabled people, not 4,
According to whom?
I mean, serilusly – “FACT CHECKING” is only is valid as the sources you use.
2. there were far fewer people with disabilities than claimed by Montgomery Jensen,
Give me numbers and sources.
3. they were all legal voters who have voted before,
Irrrelevant at best, something to look into at worst.
4. the office of the auditor and staff is asserting there was no misconduct by the staff assisting the disabled
So let me get this straight; a group of public officials, including an elected official who was just sent packing in the recent election, asserted that they weren’t complicit in abetting felonies?
Ah, well, that settles everything!
5. these were not ‘mentally incompetent’ people – they knew who they were voting for and had reasons WHY they wanted to vote for them
According to whom, and based on what? Since that seems to contravene two witness accounts (of which more later).
6. Jensen seems to have different ideas than the MN statute about who these people can choose to assist them
And you base this on what?
You’ve presented the party line, some vague blandishments and some utterly unsourced claims.
Another Voter fraud claim fizzled Mitch
“That a [person’s] reach exceed [his or her] grasp, or what is heaven for?”
— Samuel Johnson
It’d seem you’ve been studying at the “Flash School of Logic”; declare something to be so, and keep declaring it until people just move on.
It could very well fizzle, DG, but not based on any of the fairy-tale assumptions you’ve presented.
I have no idea what “research” you’ve done, Dog Gone, but I did find this story at http://ksax.com/article/stories/s1818643.shtml. The writer actually spoke to Jensen, as well as a staff member and an administrator at a place called ” Clark Lake Home Group” that “provides residential and community based services for people that are developmentally disabled or suffered traumatic brain injuries”. The Clark Lake people had taken a group to vote at the Crow Wing County auditor’s office.
It’s all he-said she-said stuff but I did notice a few oddities:
Jared Peterson, a Clark Lake staff member who helped them that Friday is quoted as saying “We have an individual with Parkinson’s (disease), where he’s shaky,” Peterson said. “We’ll … bring them up to the voting station, we’ll sit there with them, and we’ll explain to them what the ballot is, which side we’re gonna work on … and when we go down through them, we’ll say, like, ‘This is who this candidate is,’ and he’ll say, ‘Well, that’s who I want to vote for.’ We’ll say, ‘Ok.’ Then we’ll assist him with circling it in … because he’s not able to circle in ballots by himself.”
Parkinson’s is neither a developmental disability or a traumatic brain injury. Parkinson’s patients can think as well as anyone else in Crow Wing county can think.
And there is this gem from the Clark Lake Home administrator:
Lynn also said he believes Jensen’s claims are politically motivated, perhaps as a result of signs that stand in front of the Clark Lake office building supporting candidates who advocate the disabled.
I can’t think of a single person in the world who has political hatred for “candidates who advocate the disabled”. Was it a palin sign, maybe?
But what we seem to have here is an organization that has custody or care taker roles for people with mental issues, which publicly promotes certain candidates for office, and then escorts its clients to the polling place and assists them in voting.
Here is all of Minnesota Statute 204C.15 ASSISTANCE TO VOTERS.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=204C.15
They left out the bold part of the statute in the KSAX piece.
“Only the following persons may not provide assistance to a voter: the voter’s employer, an agent of the voter’s employer, an officer or agent of the voter’s union, or a candidate for election. The person who assists the voter shall, unaccompanied by an election judge, retire with that voter to a booth and mark the ballot as directed by the voter.”
Dog Gone,
I’m going to reiterate this; since you did enough “fact checking” to warrant writing it in all caps, apparently, you do need to supply the cites. Who gave you these “facts?”
Because – this is a hunch here, but I’m feeling pretty good about it – I think you’re taking the word of DFL apologists as unassailable fact again.
You seem to do that a lot.
Is that why you left the cites off, perhaps thinking nobody would noitice?
Anyway – show us where the “facts” came from, because I’ve got two witnesses now that say otherwise – and I suspect all you’ve got is the Wizard going “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”.
So, since this seems to be a one sided story, let me post an off-topic and irrelevant comment in a passive aggressive manner, purportinng to engage dialog, but really just indulging my own bitterness.
Threadjacking: symptom of narcissistic personality disorder or lack of a life. Discuss.
I’m going over https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=204C.15
It seems to be meant to apply to people who are illiterate or physically handicapped, rather than people with mental disabilities.
Assuming the 204C.15 is the relevant statute and the Clark Home is one of the groups Jensen complained about, I can see two problems.
A single person cannot “mark” for more than three voters in an election.
An election judge or other individual assisting a voter shall not in any manner request, persuade, induce, or attempt to persuade or induce the voter to vote for any particular political party or candidate.
The Clark Home administrator admitted that they advertised their support for certain candidates.
Even if you had iron clad proof that the marker pencil-whipped the DFL candidates for a voter who had the mind of an infant I’m not sure you could successfully prosecute them. 204C.15 appears to assume that the voter is intelligent enough to verify that his voting preferences have been followed. The marker may have violated 204C.15 but how could you ever prove it?
I am a little curious as to why the Clark Home didn’t do mail-in absentee ballots — oh, I know. All those applications for mail-in ballots in the same handwriting for the same address. Even Ritchie might see something fishy there.
DG believes her premise is sound and thinks she just needs to do a better job of communicating it.
Dog Gone Says: “So…….Mitch, since this appears to be a very one sided story all in favor of Joel — and I’m cheering here for Joel — HOW is the research you were going to do into the Crow Wing County voter fraud coming?”
Subject; “TRUTHY”
Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Foot, I am going to answer your off-topic and irrelevant comment with an even more passive aggressive rebuttal that has even less relevance. You’re a poopyhead.
Oh, and guns are icky (that was to keep the comment germane to the post). Can I get a gig at Penigma now?
DG
HOW is the research you were going to do into the Crow Wing County voter fraud coming?
Interestingly. Check back around noon. It’s full of actual named sources that have on-the-record statements.
Unlike what you seem to see fit to provide us.
Flippant? Sure. I’m using the gift of (pointed, acerbic) humor to get to my real point; you really, really need to quit pretending you run other blogs’ schedules, especially since you are so indulgent about your own. I’m on no deadlines – and it’s a good thing, given my schedule these days. And if I were on any deadlines, they certainly would not be set by you!
And if they were? Then it’d be perfectly fair for me to go over onto Penigma to badger you to cough up the name of the Weber Ninja. Or to back up your ongoing defamation of David Strom and Salem Twin Cities, which has been ambling along for about a year now with no real end in sight, and little material being produced.
Just saying – rather than badger me for material in my pipeline – which has an eight-year record of fairly fast turnarounds -you might want to tend to your own.
After you provide the cites for your “fact check” of the Crow Wing County allegations.
I have fact checked Kerm’s comment and have found serveral sources who report that I am definately not a poopyhead. Furthermore, chemical analysis on my head done by my neighbor – a noted scientician – has confirmed that my head is indeed not made of poop.
Q.E.D.
I want a cite of that, Foot. It’s easy to say “my head is not made of poop”, but there is precious little proof, and your vociferous denial leads one to believe the opposite. For instance, what field is this “scientician” actually trained in? Is he a long-time neighbor of yours? Is he by any chance funded by Big Poop? Trust but verify.
Oh, and guns are icky (that was to keep the comment germane to the post).
Still waiting for that email from Peeve.
I wrote a blog post about the non-poopiness of my head several years ago. You should check there for a more in-depth discussion of my head’s poop status.
And no, I will not provide a link.
Dear Mom and Dad,
No, I do not write a blog. Why do you ask?
I said guns were icky. What more do I have to do?
Mitch,
I just fact checked you. You do indeed write a blog. It’s called “Shot in the Dark”. No, I will not provde a link.
Another blog non-authorship claim fizzled, Mitch.
And yes, I am having a ball doing this.
Who gave you these “facts?”
[DG]
Facts? We don’t need no stinking facts!
[/DG]
Mitch has been writing a blog for years. I know this for a fact because I have read it. Another attempt at obfuscation has been derailed by the vigilance of the blog reading public!
Fizzled! Fizzled I tells you!
Lolz at lunch. Gentlemen, from the bottom of my heart, thank you all.
Word just reached the street that there was FACTCHECKING occurring, so I rushed over as quick as I could, but evidently not fast enough.
Gunz = Icky: FACTCHECKED
Foot =(Poopyhead(not)): FACTCHECKED
Are there no facts left that need checking?
Wait! There is one thing I see lacking a FACTCHECK…be right back.
– REASEARCHING…
– REASEARCHING…
– REASEARCHING…
– REASEARCHING…
– REASEARCHING…
– REASEARCHING…
– REASEARCHING…
There; done.
DOG = Drunk again before noon: FACTCHECKED!
And no, I won’t provide a link; but you could follow the trail of empty Victory gin bottles if you want to.
I’ll provide a link. Hormel Little Sizzler. Lots of yummy pork, although it’s a claim that does need FACTCHECKING.
Oh yeah, Gunz = Icky (just to stay on topic).
Ahem.
DG, I would very much like Bill Palmer to step forward and tell his side of the story. On the other hand, I can understand why he’s exercising his right to remain silent, and think that’s probably the wisest thing for him to do.
If only he’d previously exercised his right to do his job without demanding money from me before he started, and/or exercised his right to keep his hands to himself . . .
Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » He Said, Sarge Said, Part I