Thirty Years Ago On The East Side

Hard to believe it’s been thirty years since Guy Harvey Baker – a Gulf War Marine veteran with, clearly, mental illness issues – killed officers Ron Ryan, Tim Jones, and a police dog named Laser (story from 2014).

The PiPress had a fairly good retrospective of the events – with one crucial omission:   

Ryan, 26, was checking on a man — Guy Harvey Baker — who was sleeping in a car in a parking lot at Sacred Heart Catholic Church in the Dayton’s Bluff neighborhood about 7 a.

He picked up a .38-caliber revolver from his lap and shot Ryan.

Scores of officers joined the search for Ryan’s killer. Jones had the day off, but he came in to help.

Laser picked up Baker’s trail about 10 a.m. on Conway Street, not far from Johnson Parkway.

Mara Gottfried’s story, ten years ago, was a good retelling.  But she leaves out how the police actually found Baker’s “trail” on Conway later that morning – and, in a way, the story of a man who is both the story’s unsung hero and third (human) victim.

Lyle Granlund – 48 years old, at the time – was having breakfast with his kids on the upper level of a three-plex he owned across from the parking lot.  One of his sons yelled that there’d been a shooting.  Granlund grabbed a handgun and loaded three rounds – all he could grab at the moment – and went to his window.  He saw officer Ryan on the ground, and saw Baker driving toward another woman, standing in the doorway of a nearby apartment building, apparently getting ready to rub out the only known witness to the shooting. 

Granlund – an expert marksman – pondered taking out Baker.  But he held up, worried that the Ramsey County attorney, the infamously anti-gun Tom Foley, would prosecute him.  So he opted to fire two shots through Baker’s back window, shattering it and leaving the rounds (intentionally) in Baker’s dashboard, to hopefully scare Baker off and mark the car for the police.  He saved his third round, in case Baker decided to come for him.  But no – Baker accelerated away from the scene of the Ryan shooting…

…and it was by the shattered window that the SPPD found Baker’s trail, a couple hours later, nearby on Conway Street.

I interviewed Granlund later that year, for the old Gun Owners Action League (a predecessor of GOCRA and MN Gun Owners Caucus) newsletter.  Granlund told me that while the SPPD remained officially mum about his contribution to that day’s search, more than one senior Saint Paul cop had come to his door in the following days, paying their respects to his effort to save their fellow officer.  A lieutenant left him his SPPD tie pin – a gesture that Granlund, in our interview, still found deeply touching.

I wrote about Granlund again, almost ten years ago, in a piece that includes a lot of useful background and  a link to a now-disappeared column by Ruben Rosario. 

 Granlund was right, of course; Foley did try to prosecute him.  Their attempt to get him for “reckless discharge” foundered when the police lab found Granlund’s two rounds exactly where he said they’d be in Baker’s car.  The Ramsey County Attorney’s office dropped its  attempt to prosecute Granlund only when the SPPD told Foley he’d get no cooperation from the police.  Someone listing himself as a retired SPPD cop tells the story in this thread

Oh yeah – and Granlund was denied a Minnesota carry permit; the SPPD that (quietly) regarded him as a hero also didn’t think he had any reason to need one. 

Gottfried picks up the story from 30 years ago today.

Baker heard the dog whining outside a fish house where he was hiding, saw Jones through the window and, through the side of the shack, shot the 36-year-old officer with the gun had stolen from Ryan. When Laser bit his leg, he shot the dog, too.

No prosecutor will ever issue an indictment, and no jury will ever hear the case – but in a very real if indirect way, Officer Jones was killed by official gun-control hysteria. 

The tragedy didn’t end that day.  When I spoke with Granlund, probably in September or October, he was clearly upset that he’d not been able to save Jones by killing Baker.  It went much deeper than that; Granlund spent the next ten years depressed about the episode.  He died in 2004 of a heart attack, at age 58, and is buried in the same cemetery as Officer Ryan. 

The lesson?  Let nobody tell you that an armed citizen can’t do immense good; one, and God only knows how many more, people are alive today because of Granlund’s action. 

And let no weasel government official get away with terrorizing the law-abiding citizen without a fight – preferably ending with a prosecutor sent to the unemployment line at the polls.

The families of the slain officers are the main focus of Gottfried’s story, of course.  I’ll urge prayers – or whatever your worldview does – for the families on what has to be a miserable anniversary.

This is an update of a piece that first appeared in SITD ten years ago today.

News You Can, And May Well Need To, Use

What to do if you’re surrounded by a mob on the road?

Like most self-defense law, it’s a lot more complicated than you think.

While the lawyer is talking Washington State law (talk with a Minnesota defense attorney before assuming anything) they highlight the episode that happened in Minneapolis, by the Walker, a month or so ago.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Someone Else’s Shoes

Joe Doakes, formerly of Como Park, emails:

The Minnesota Court of Appeals issued an opinion which clarifies the duty to retreat in defense-of-others cases.

Let’s imagine a situation where Lilly is the Victim lying on the ground, Trevon is the Assailant kneeling astride Lilly beating her with a baseball bat, and Tom is the Rescuer, a lawfully armed citizen who sees the situation.  Tom determines that Lilly is likely to suffer great bodily harm or death if Tom does not intervene using lethal force to stop Trevon’s attack.  If Tom shoots Trevon, can Tom claim he acted in self-defense?  In the past, we often heard that the Rescuer steps into the Victim’s shoes.  If the Victim could use self-defense, the Rescuer could, too.  But there was no case which clearly said so.

We know that in defense-of-self cases (if Trevon was attacking Tom), Tom must retreat if he can do so safely, before using lethal force.  That’s not the situation here.

The State was arguing that in defense-of-others cases, Tom as Rescuer must also retreat if he can do so safely, leaving Lilly, the Victim, to die.  It’s more important to prevent a shooting than to save a life.

The Court of Appeals decided that was wrong.  The duty to retreat is the duty of the VICTIM to retreat, not the duty of the RESCUER.

If Lilly could not safely retreat, then Tom might be justified in shooting Trevon to stop the deadly attack.

Of course, Tom is taking a risk in doing so.  The other rules of self-defense still apply.  Lilly may have initiated the confrontation, Trevon may be using a bat to stop Lilly from stabbing him with a knife again, Tom is still stuck in Lilly’s shoes for those elements of the defense.  But at least the leave-her-to-die argument has been laid to rest.

So that’s good news.

Joe Doakes, no longer in Como Park

It’s about time.

“A Conservative Is A Liberal Who’s Been Mugged”

That might not be the result of this episode – at least, I but this past Tuesday Shivanthi Sathanandan, a Minnesota state DFL executive who advocated defunding the police gets the living crap beating out of her by carjackers.

And yep, she was one of those DFLers::

In her June 2020 post, Sathanandan thanked two Minneapolis City Council members for their “radical leadership” in working to “dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department.”

“We are going to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department. Say it with me,” she wrote.

This past Tuesay, Sathanandan it was in her own yard when…:

“Four very young men, all carrying guns, beat me violently down to the ground in front of our kids. The young men held our neighbors up at gunpoint when they ran over and tried to help me. All in broad daylight,” DFL Second Vice Chair Shivanthi Sathanandan wrote in a public Facebook post, which included a picture of her face after the alleged assault.

“Look at my face in the picture. This is the face of a mother who just had the sh$t beaten out of her. A mother whose only thought was, ‘let me run far enough and fight hard enough so that my kids have a chance to get away.’ This is the face of a mother who just listened to her four-year-old daughter screaming non-stop, her seven-year-old son wailing for someone to come help because bad guys are murdering his Mama in the backyard, her neighbors screaming in outrage … all while being beaten with guns and kicks and fists,” she said.

It’s not Sathanandan’s job to add that if any of those neighbors had responded with the kind of force that could have ended the assault, Mary Moriarty would likely have prosecuted them far more harshly than the carjackers themselves.

But unlike some previous victms, who’ve blamed “the system” and themselves, Sathanandan reaches a rational conclusion:

“And I have rage. These men knew what they were doing. I have NO DOUBT they have done this before. Yet they are still on OUR STREETS. Killing mothers. Giving babies psychological trauma that a lifetime of therapy cannot erase. With no hesitation and no remorse,” she said.

“We need to get illegal [!!! – Ed.] guns off of our streets, catch these young people who are running wild creating chaos across our city and HOLD THEM IN CUSTODY AND PROSECUTE THEM,” she said. “Look at my face. REMEMBER ME when you are thinking about supporting letting juveniles and young people out of custody to roam our streets instead of HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.”

.

It’s natural – and in some cases appropriate, and in Sathanandan’s case documentably true. The DFL does in fact own the situation. And I do pile schadenfreud on the

But I’m going to urge people to take the opportunity to see the opportunity, here. Sathanandan may never become a law-and order conservative – but Minneapolis got where it is incrementally, and any improvement will be at least as incremental.

And if you’re so inclined, pray for those kids. The fruits of the politics of the parents shouldn’t be visited on the kids.

Much less their neighbors.

UPDATE. There is speculation that this is staged. Some are make a plausible case. The blood doesn’t look like any head laceration usually looks (and believe me, I’ve had a few), and she takes a pretty composed-looking photo for someone with a broken leg.

OTOH: the hoax, if it is one, benefits conservatives, and even the Frey administration, against whom the Minneapolis DFL is mustering money and votes.

Not saying that’s not plausible – but why?

On The Fast Track To “Berg’s Law” Status

Everyone’s got something to kvetch about in the Daniel Perry case.

The usual crowd on the left is whinging that a white guy, just convicted of murdering a BLM “protester”, is getting pardoned by Governor Abbot.

Another, much smarter, crowd is reminding the world, “uh, the ‘protester’ was being ‘mostly peaceful’ by pointing an AK47 at Perry”.

For my part? While I don’t know all the specifics, it’d seem the main factor in Perry’s conviction – in Austin, at the hands of a Soros prosecutor, naturally – apparently happened not because of what he did during the incident, but because of what he said before:

Perry’s defense team argued that he acted in self-defense, but prosecutors contended that Perry instigated what happened. They highlighted a series of social media posts and Facebook messages in which Perry made statements that they said indicated his state of mind, such as he might “kill a few people on my way to work. They are rioting outside my apartment complex.”

While I don’t know the details, a zealous prosecutor can use such statements to impeach your “unwilling participant” status. It appears similar to the case of Alan Scarsella, who did many stupid things after shooting at people pursuing him and his friends at a BLM protest outside the Fourth Precinct in Minneapolis in 2015, but who appears to have gone to prison mostly because of a video he posted on the way to the event bragging about mixing it up with protesters. A good attorney could have possibly suppressed that “evidence” – but he had a public defender, so he might be out of prison now.

Which brings us to the proposed Berg’s Law of Armed Self-Defense:

“The first rule of armed self-defense is, you never talk about armed self-defense.

Don’t joke about it with your friends. Don’t brag about it on social media. Don’t have an angry outburst about protesters or rioters where unfriendly ears might hear you.

Keep it, like your firearms, hidden under the proverbial bushel basket.

Like I would, if all my guns hadn’t fallen into Mille Lacs. Which is fine, because guns terrify me and I’d never use one on a fellow human.

The Dicken Drill

Noticed a lot more people shooting at silhouettes waaaaaay down at the other end of the range lately?

Blame Elisha Dicken, the hero of last summer’s attempted spree killing in Indiana, who put eight out of ten shots into a would-be mass murderer at a range of 40 yards, under the stress of shooting at someone out to murder everyone he could see.

Massood Ayoob comments on the episode, the drill – and comments on some other attempted spree killings ended by good guys with guns….

…at ranges that seem like they’re from Davy Crockett tales.

A Guy With A Gun

Last week, an armed robber at a Taqueria in Houston, Texas got tuned up by a guy with a gun.

I desperately want to call him a “good guy with a gun“. pinky swear, I do. An armed robber f**ked around, and he found out.

Warning: not for the faint of heart. Somebody dies in this video.

Remember; to claim self-defense (and win a trial, if it comes to that), you have to show five things:

You are innocent (or not the aggressor)

You reasonably fear, death are great bodily harm

That threat is immediate.

you use only the force needed to end that threat.

It’s Texas, so there is no duty to retreat

My two cents worth:

  • The first four shots are perfectly good
  • Shots five through eight might be explainable, by a decent lawyer.
  • Shot number nine? Looks like an execution. AYou’re going to need a very good lawyer indeed.
  • Leaving the scene afterwards? Could be problematic.

This show – two self defense lawyers discussing the case – is two of the better hours. I’ve seen on the subject. It’s well worth a watch.

It’s a cautionary episode, indeed.

Let It Be Noted

I stay pretty relentlessly civil, especially when discussing politics. There’s enough pointless anger out there.

But I’m going to say this, and I don’t care what you think about it: If you are part of the lefty social media mob that thinks “Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer”, you are a flat-earther.

Complicated stuff follows. Stay with me, progressives.

You think someone’s trying to kill you. You shoot them – maybe fatally, maybe not. You’re arrested. The DA presses charges – assault, homicide, whatever.

To even be allowed to *argue* self-defense for assault or homicide, you have to show a judge evidence, to a legal standard, that:

  • you reasonably feared being killed
  • That threat was immediate – it was literally them or you, right then and there.
  • you were not the aggressor [1]
  • you used ONLY the force needed to end that lethal threat.
  • in many states (including MN, but not WI), that you *reasonably* tried to get away [2].

That’s *before* the trial. If your evidence on any of those 4-5 criteria doesn’t stack up, you’ll be a defendant in a murder trial, not a self-defense trial.

Once you’ve gotten past that? On to trial!

And there, if the prosecution disproves any of those 4-5 factors beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury? You’re going to prison – for assault if nobody died, and murder if they did.

That’s a pretty high burden of proof for a “Murderer” to skate past. (Don’t think so? That’s just ignorant.

“But the judge was biased”

No, he wasn’t.

Rittenhouse may not have been a hero [3]. And if you think the whole episode is stupid and unfortunate, I don’t disagree – although in a moral society, the burden should fall on those who set out to damage and destroy others property.

Either way calling Rittenhouse a “murderer” is ignorant at best. And there’s an implied clause after “at best” [4]…

…but again, I try to stay civil.

I try. But I’m only human. It can’t last forever.

[1] And no, doing something you have every legal right to do does not make you an aggressor. Rittenhouse had a right to be where he was, and to carry a rifle. Don’t like it? Take it up with the Wisconsin Assembly.

[2] Where “reasonable” is defined by statute or, much more usually, in a stack of case law references that you have to be a lawyer to understand.

[3]But after seeing the mayhem that the entitled children of the politicalclass got away with scot-free in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis and Kenosha, it’s not hard to understand why some people think he is a hero.

[4] And that implied clause may or may not but definitely does include the thought that a whole lot of the “Rittenhouse is teh murdererer” crowd think rioting and rioters are justified, which is a pretty problematic view.

Yet Another Good Guy With A Gun

Bystander in the St. Louis area shoots a serial violent armed robber:

A man who police say went on a “violent crime spree” at three gas stations was shot and killed by a customer armed with a gun, Missouri police say.

It happened around 3:20 a.m. on Saturday, July 16, in St. Charles, just outside St. Louis. The St. Charles Police Department said the 26-year-old robbery suspect, who is from St. Louis, died at a local hospital after being shot by a witness.

While I expected the knife wielding robber was “just getting his life together“, I’ve had no written confirmation.

All I know is, it’s been a good week for the good guys.

More Of This

Minneapolis delivery driver with a (apparently) permitted handgun gives carjackers a significant emotional growth experience.

The driver was making a delivery to one of the Abbott buildings at 29th and Chicago, when the ne’er-do-wells made their move:

“My dad was making a delivery at Allina hospital earlier today and almost got carjacked, the suspects got scared and ran when my dad pulled his gun on them. One of them had a pistol and was tapping his gun on the passenger side window while his friend was trying to force open the door. [I’m] glad I convinced my dad to carry especially with how crazy crime is.”

Video shot from victim vehicle. Suspect is the one that backs out of frame to the right.

The video leaves a bit to the imagination.

The part I’m having the most fun imagining…

SPOILER ALERT

…is the discussion the two punks had with the getaway driver who peeled out and left them running on foot away from an armed man.

But it’s fun to imagine.

Cleanup

St. Paul man shoots daughters boyfriend after he allegedly barges into his house with a very bad attitude:

A 56-year-old man told investigators that his daughter’s boyfriend broke kicked in his front door, threatened his daughter, and he shot him.

Paramedics pronounced [“boyfriend” Kaleef] Barnes dead at the scene.

According to police, this killing marked the 13th homicide in St. Paul this year. Last year at this time, the city’s homicide count was at nine. Barnes’ shooting happened just hours after an unrelated shootingThursday evening in the North End neighborhood where one man was killed and another seriously wounded.

The case is still with the Ramsey county attorneys office. Coming weeks after the Hennepin county attorneys office declined to charge a woman for a self-defense shooting in her own home, and apparently declined to press charges against it would be car jacking victim, one might be tempted to feel encouraged that citizens are cleaning the cities up, just a little bit.

But Berg’s 18th law is still in full affect. We don’t know all the details, and if anything, John Choi may be worse at dealing with civilian self-defense shooters than even Mike Freeman.

So your metaphysical appeals in whatever form your worldview recognizes on behalf of the homeowner/citizen are encouraged.

An Apparently Not Very Bright Guy With A Gun

If you are a carry permittee, you should read this story and literally do nothing the Mr. Davis in this story did.

Workers told police that Davis (the “victim”) was protective of the [liquor store where the incident took place]. Davis accused Edwards [the shoplifter who ended up charged with shooting Davis] of concealing a bottle of vodka and took the bottle from him and demanded Edwards leave the store.

According to the charges, Edwards said he had a gun and started digging through his backpack. But, as it turned out, Davis was carrying a weapon himself, telling the victim that he had a “license” and “displayed” the weapon.

Police say surveillance video showed the two men move out to the parking lot where they started fighting. The charges state:

“Edwards and [Davis] eventually went to the sidewalk outside the store. Edwards appeared to threaten [Davis] with pepper spray, and the two men got into a heated exchange. Edwards grabbed [Davis’] shoulders. KD tried to remove his handgun from his jacket while wrestling with Edwards. [Davis’] handgun fell to the ground. When KD reached to retrieve the gun, Edwards pushed [Davis] away from the gun into the parking lot.”

Mr.. Davis did literally everything wrong, legally and tactically.

  • He was a willing participant.
  • Not sure how you would claim a threat to your life and health from someone stealing vodka.
  • He got into scuffle and allowed himself to lose his weapon.

Don’t do any of this.

GIven his behavior, I doubt Davis had a carry permit; if he did, I’ve got questions for his instructor.

I Love A Happy Ending

A good Lyft driver with a gun ends a car jacking in west Philadelphia:

Two suspects in an armed carjacking are in the hospital after police say they attempted to take a vehicle from a Lyft who was armed with a gun he was licensed to carry on Monday afternoon in West Philadelphia.

Now, let me be absolutely clear on this; I don’t have any guns, and the thought of shooting someone in self defense is mortifying to me.

But I’m going to bet at least a few carjackers in Philadelphia are mulling changes to career plans.

No News Is Acceptable News

SCENE: Mitch BERG is having a cocktail at a downtown Saint Paul bar when MyLyssa SILBERMAN, Reporter for National Public Radio’s Saint Paul bureau, covering the “Fake News” and “Diversity” beats, happens in.

SILBERMAN: Merg…

BERG: Er, hey, MyLyssa…

SILBERMAN: Last week, Kyle Rittenhouse was aquitted of domestic terrorism for shooting up a Black Lives Matter rally.

BERG: You got one fact correct in that sentence, so I guess that’s a start.

SILBERMAN: What if that would have been a black man? Leaving aside the fact that he’d be dead right now, for a moment, what would all of you white male gun owners be saying about it? Would your reaction be any different?

BERG: Funny you mentioned that. Last week – the same day of the RIttenhouse verdict, in fact – Andrew Coffee IV was acquitted of murder, and attempted murder of police, when he shot at a no-knock raid on his house. No cops were killed, but Coffee was up for homicide in the death of his girlfriend was shot 10 times by a SWAT team. He was acquitted, for exactly the same reasons Rittenhouse was. He was a felon with a gun, so he might get some time for that, but he had nearly exactly the same self-defense case as Rittenhouse.

And we started finally getting some details about the acquittal of Jaleel Stallings, who returned fire at cops who were firing rubber bullets from a van without announcing their presence; Stallings fired back until the cops identified themselves (and beat the crap out of him), and got acquitted – again, for exactly the same reasons that Rittenhouse was.

Both were in reasonable fear of immediate death. Both used appropriate force. Both met their states self-defense rules. Both were acquitted.

And gun owners – presumably including many of us “white males” – supported them, as the facts got out, in their self-defense claims – albeit not necessarily Coffee’s having his illegal gun…

SILBERMAN: Mitch, Mitch, you’re missing my point.

BERG: Which is…?

SILBRERMAN: I asked if you white male gun owners would support a black man with a gun defending himself.

BERG: And I gave you two where the answer was “yes”,and that major media seemed to avoid covering. Including NPR.

SILBERMAN: You gave me concrete examples. I asked an abstract question. Please give me an astract answer…

BERG: Yes, we would and do…

SILBERMAN: …that confirms my prejudices.

And SCENE.

Rittenhouse: Not Guilty On All Counts

Live feed.

Count 1 (Rosenbaum): Not guilty

Count 2 (McGuinness) Not guilty

Count 3 (Jump Kick Guy) Not guilty

Count 4 (Huber) Not guilty

Count 5 (Grosskreutz) Not guilty

Strap in, Kenosha. It’s gonna be a bumpy night. :

And here’s hoping Rittenhouse follows Nick Sandman into civil court.

UPDATE: Judge Schroeder after the Jury left the room: “Motion of the defense is granted, the charges are dismissed with prejudice. Mr. Rittenhouse is released from the obligation of his bond”.

That was what you call “bouncing the rubble” .

Trial And Error

SCENE: Mitch BERG is walking through the Cub Foods on Larpenteur, gauging the level of shortage going on, when Avery LIBRELLE almost literally bumps into him.

LIBRELLE: Merg!

BERG: Aw, ssshhhhhure enough, it’s Avery. How are you…

LIBRELLE: People going places where people don’t know who they are, and might be angered by their presence, should stay home. It’s just provocation!”

BERG: Are you talking about the Rittenhouse Trial, or the Ahmad Arberry trial?

LIBRELLE: Clearly, the…

(Stops)

LIBRELLE: Um…the…er…

BERG: (Slowly steps away as the wheels grind slowly to a halt.

And SCENE

So Then This Happened

During testimony yesterday in the Kyle Rittenhoue trial, Gaige Grosskreuz – the “medic” with the illegally-concealed who was shot while chasing Rittenhouse with an illegally-concealed Glock – this happened:

In this, Grosskreutz admits – after a half-hour of cross-examination by defense attorney Chirifisi – that his actions justified Rittenhouse’s claim of self-defense against him, and likely Huber as well. The admission above takes place at 3:23 of the video below; the preceding several minutes of the defense cross-examination is fascinating….

…as Chirifisi slowly backs Grosskreutz into telling the truth, is fascinating to watch.

As was the prosecutor’s classic facepalm.

Defense attorney Andrew Branca blogged about the day’s events. He’s scathing to ADA Binger.

As I stepped through the cross-examination of Grosskreutz today, I identified no fewer than 19 substantive portions, nearly 50% of the total time spent on cross by Attorney Chirafisi, that were substantively destructive to the State’s narrative of guilt, and helpful to the defense narrative of self-defense.   It was harder to identify the parts to leave out of today’s end-of-day post than it was to select the parts to keep in.

“Directed verdict” – a judge telling a jury that the facts leave only one possible choice – is what the lawyers in the windows on the left of the screen start yelling. I suspect that’s unlikely, although less so than the belief in some quarters that the judge should toss the whole trial, which just isn’t going to happen; someone would gin that into grounds for an appeal, and then you’re one judge away from having to go through the whole thing again.

In the course of this trial, I’ve learned one important thing; the big lesson I took away from carry permit class 16 years ago has changed. The defense no longer has to prove the major elements of their case; they have the burden of providing evidence of self-defense; the prosecution then has to prove that any one of the following five standards for self-defense wasn’t met:

1. Innocence – the defendant didn’t start the altercation

2. Proportionality – they used only the force necessary to stop the threat

3. Imminence – the lethal force was used in response to something going on at that moment; not the day before, not some future threat.

4. Reasonableness – the defendant reasonably believed they were going to die.

5. Avoidance – the defendant tried to avoid the episode. Note – even in a Stand your Ground or Castle situation, judges will often advise juries it’s best to try to avoid the use of lethal force.

It seems obvious that the prosecution’s case in the Huber and Grosskreutz shootings fell apart yesterday. The Rosenbaum shooting may be a little closer fought, but I think there’s at least reasonable doubt so far…

…and the defense still hasn’t presented its case.

Just to be clear – killing is a tragedy, and it’s best not to be where one expects violence to happen. The law – and, in places like Minneapolis and Kenosha, politics – aren’t fond of citizens defending their property. Be aware of this.

But hopefully this past two years, and a good mid-term at the state and federal level, start changing that.

All Things Must Pass

During the 2015 protests around the Fourth precinct in North Minneapolis, there was a shooting incident. A group of four young white men got into a verbal tilt with a group of the protesters, which led to a chase through the streets of North Minneapolis. Then one of the quite guys, Alan Scarsella, drew his legally permitted handgun and fired, wounding one of the men and ending the chase.

We wrote about this back when it happened. On the one hand, one could argue the fear of death or great bodily harm was reasonable; Scarsella used exactly the effort needed to end the attack, and I don’t know if I’ve ever heard of anyone making a more reasonable effort to retreat.

On the other hand, he handled the post shooting process, and the optics that are so important to jurors, about as badly as possible, going into hiding from the police until they came and found him. and there was one other thing, which we will come back to below.

In the weeks following the shooting, the press lionized the shooting victim, Cameron Clark.

Who is, by the way, back in the news this week:

Cameron Clark was shot during a 2015 protest by a man named Allen Scarsella, who was being chased by protesters who were demonstrating after Clark’s cousin, Jamar Clark, was killed by police. Although Scarsella claimed self-defense, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison after a trial that largely hinged on his history of making racially insensitive remarks.

And there’s a note in there for Potential self-defense shooters; while a good lawyer could’ve potentially gotten the completely unrelated remarks suppressed from evidence, it would’ve been much easier had they not existed. As I tell people on social media I’ll start stressing about how they intend to treat burglars, “the first rule of armed self-defense as you never talk about armed self-defense”.

But we digress:

Following the shooting, Clark was uplifted by Minnesota media as a voice for racial justice. Now, he’s received a lengthy sentence of his own after he tried to murder his unborn child.

While the lionization was far from the most ridiculous I’ve seen coming from Twin Cities media – Clark was not an unsympathetic victim, profiler you left the whole “chasing people through the streets“ thing out of the story, and implausible as it seems, perhaps they learned some thing from the ridicule they suffered over this – perhaps the media should learn the real lesson; taking sides in these sorts of episodes never works well

Waiting, As Always, For The Facts

An argument over a fender-bender in Saint Paul last May 1 led to a shooting, and a self-defense claim. The case is currently at trial, and both the prosecution and defense are presenting their cases to the public.

I’ve heard speculation on both sides as to whether the defendant – Mr. Trifiletti – has a good self-defense case or not. His attorney presents some of the right talking points in the article above, but it’s a crapshoot.

Only two real points for me, so far:

The Last Resort: It’s as my first permit instructor, Joel Rosenberg, said – using a gun in self-defense sets off an atomic bomb in your life. One can point to a few “best cases” – like the shooter in the Evanovich case, where the case was so absolutely unambiguously strong that even anti-gun extremist Mike Freeman hailed the shooter as a hero, and the good samaritan wasn’t even arrested.

The Trifilletti/Lewis shooting is a lot more normal; ambiguous circumstances, conflicting stories, impossible choices. The shooter is on trial, and guilty or acquitted, this will affect, badly, the rest of his life.

I’ve got some acquaintances in the field who say Trifilletti’s case is going to be a tough one. We shall see.

The Numbers: But even if Trifilletti is convicted, he will be (by my count – it’s possible I’m missing something, although not super likely) the second carry permittee to be convicted of an unjustified homicide in the almost 18 years since the passage of “Shall Issue” carry permitting.

Minnesota’s homicide rate in 2017 was 2 per 100,000. In that same year, Minneapolis’s homicide rate was 10 per 100,000.

There are currently nearly 300,000 carry permits in circulation in MInnesota. That amounts to close to one in ten non-prohibited adult Minnesotans. That number has been steadily over 200,000 for nearly a decade, after taking several years to rise into six digits (the MN House research office predicted a maximum of 90,000 Minnesotans would get permits in 2003). So let’s call it an average of 150,000 a year for 17 years. That’s a total of 2.55 million permit/years.

That amounts – or may amount, if a conviction happens to a murder rate among Minnesota carry permit holders of roughly less than one per million (that’s .07 per 100,000) per year.

Carry permittees are literally 20 times safer than the general public.

Keep that in mind, since the shrieking ninnies in our editorial caste will not.

Toward A More Awesome Union

The first requirement of an orderly society is order which must be imposed by an impartial judiciary.  That cannot happen when the judicial system is afraid of violence.

***

Old:

From: Chief Judge
To: All Employees

You may have read or heard that the Court House was locked down today for about 15 min. After a sentencing hearing on a homicide, the families of the defendant and victim engaged in a dispute that was broken up by deputies. Soon after, gun shots occurred on Wabasha and 6th St.  Deputies locked down the courthouse as a result of the gunfire. It is not clear to me if the events were related. 

Based on information I have received, no one was injured and bullet casings were collected. The matter is under investigation. It appears that at no time was our courthouse security compromised. The deputies took swift and appropriate action throughout this disturbing incident.

New:

From: Chief Judge Joe Doakes
To: All Employees

In the past, when the judicial system was subject to violence, we hid and hoped to be killed last.  From now on, when a violent situation arises, all employees shall report to the nearest Arms Locker where the Master at Arms will distribute restraints, gas masks, and weapons, at which time use of deadly force to protect both judicial property and employee lives is authorized.  Employees may stand their ground to do so; the requirement to retreat is suspended.

***

That ought to help. Now, let’s talk about the George Floyd trial, and about Supreme Court nominees.

Joe Doakes

The policies that’d go into effect if Mitch Berg were in charge – suffice to say it’d be more than judicial branch employees.

Once the governor declared “state of emergency” related to the breakdown of public order, the order to retreat would go the way of the Hibbing chopstick factory, and the sign of a weapon in the hands of a violent mob would serve as reasonable threat of death or great bodily harm, and one’s property would be every bit as defensible as lives.

Make me Governor, and this, I promise.

Statement Against Interest

“Prog” columnist looks at the statute and the evidence, concludes Kyle Rittenhouse will likely be acquitted.

I don’t disagree – and find that there’s ample grounds for caution for all the rest of us that take the Second Amendment seriously.

I homed in on these two passages:

When [the first “victim”, Joseph] Rosenbaum, who was unarmed, finally cornered Rittenhouse, he grabbed for the teenager’s gun. Multiple shots rang out, and Rosenbaum fell, mortally wounded.

Did Rittenhouse have a reasonable belief under the circumstances that if Rosenbaum got his gun he would suffer death or great bodily harm? Jurors in Wisconsin are instructed that “reasonable” means “what a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence would have believed … under the circumstances that existed at the time.”

And this bit here:

A third victim, Gaige Grosskreutz, 26, of West Allis, Wisconsin, who survived, first held up his hands in a gesture of surrender at a distance of a few feet. In one of his hands, he held a gun. But when he “moved toward” Rittenhouse, prosecutors said, Rittenhouse fired, striking him in the arm.

That final shooting “will be the most serious problem” for Rittenhouse at trial, Kling said. ”The guy did have a gun in his hand. But he wasn’t pointing it at or threatening Rittenhouse.”

My first carry permit instructor, the last Joel Rosenberg, used to put it this way: “You’ll be making a life-or-death decision in a split second, likely under incredible stress, in the dark, with incomplete information. The prosector will have weeks and months in a warm, well-lit building, protected by metal detectors and deputies, to decide whether you were right”.

Another of Joel’s sayings: “Shooting in self-defense is a choice between losing your life, and ruining it”.

Because while there’s a lot of rhetoric about deterring the madness, to say nothing of resisting it, it’s still incredibly risky, and under normal circumstances – and even some garden-variety extraordinary ones – best avoided:

Overwhelmingly I hear from the professionals that their plan for dealing with riots and mayhem is “Don’t be there.” Check the ego. Back away from the social media siren call to “be part of the solution.” Inserting yourself into a riot (AKA “war zone”) where we now know there are armed violent criminals (often felons) who are there with the expressed intent to do extreme violence to someone is, in my view, just foolish.

It’s said that good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement. I sure have found that to be true a lot of times. In flying, we say you have a skill bucket and a luck bucket. You hope to fill your skill bucket before using up everything in the luck bucket.

For your consideration.

Absolute Moral Authority

Patrick Neville – a survivor of the Columbine Massacre, and a Colorado State Representative – is pushing a bill that’d allow qualified Colorado school staff to carry their legal firearms for self-defense:

“The only thing that is going to stop murderers intent on doing harm is to give good people the legal authority to carry a gun to protect themselves and our children,” Neville said in a statement, according to The Hill.

“More of my friends would still be alive today.”

The bill put forward by Neville, a Republican, would let teachers with concealed weapons permits carry guns at the state’s schools in an attempt to halt future shootings.

Neville introduced the same bill last year, which failed.

“Unfortunately, the current system continues to leave our children as sitting targets for criminals intent on doing harm,” he said.

Big Left, of course, only grants a platform to the right survivors.

But this sort of thing needs to be pushed in front of the public early and often.

Men In England Now A-Bed…

The tale of the Brits who, despite their government’s best efforts to neuter them, dealt with the terrorist attack in London over the weekend:

Of course, the Brits are lucky it’s a story that’s gone ’round the world; if it were regular street crime, they’d be prosecuted more seriously than the thug.

It’s something to celebrate – and take as a warning. “Progressive” government – in this case, one that strips citizens of their means and right to self-defense, rendering a citizen a subject – is a bigger danger than terrorism.