joelrosenberg ([info]joelrosenberg) wrote,
@ 2007-12-30 09:24:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
NARN Yesterday
I was on for a couple of segments of the NARN show with Mitch and Ed yesterday.  He put forth an interesting theory about the Treptow case -- it's just a theory, of course, but if it's true, it casts the Anoka County Attorney's office in a much less unfavorable light than they appear to be with their Kafkaesque indictment of Martin Scott Treptow.

We'll see. 

It's going to be podcast at Townhall; I'll post the link here when it becomes available.  More later.

Certainly, this case -- the first defensive shooting by a permit holder since carry reform passed in Minnesota -- isn't going to get any less interesting. 

Mitch put it better than I could:
...there’s no way around the fact that defending oneself against a felony charge is expensive.  If you have a post-holiday buck or two to share…:

Martin and Rebecca Treptow
Anoka Hennepin Credit Union,
3505 Northdale Blvd. N.W.
Coon Rapids, MN 55448.


(Post a new comment)


[info]unix_jedi
2007-12-30 08:51 pm UTC (link)
For those of us a ... mite out of range of Minn. AM stations, barring some serious atmospheric effects, can you summarize his thesis?

I'd really be heartened to hear anything to mitigate this (at least it would have used to be an) un-American travesty.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]joelrosenberg
2007-12-30 11:31 pm UTC (link)
I'll post a link to the podcast when it's available. The short form of Mitch's theory is that it's the first move by the authorities to get rid of Beard without tangling up Robbinsdale in a lawsuit by him, while throwing a bone to the bad cop community by indicting Treptow under a theory that simply can't stand up.

I'm not sure that it's true, but I hope that it is.

Reminds me again of one my wishes -- that we had some sort of company around here whose business it was to send professional investigators out to find out things that might be of interest the public, then have those reports edited and distributed inexpensively, perhaps on a daily basis, possibly printed on inexpensive paper.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Good show, BTW
(Anonymous)
2007-12-31 07:29 am UTC (link)
It was a good show. If details come forth to show that such a series of events are about to take place, then I don't see Treptow having to stand trial long.

Do we know yet who will take the stand first and for what? I am betting that the discharge and terroristic threads stuff gets dropped rather quickly. (and quietly) Just a hunch.

the drive by shooting charge is what burns me. as it was beard who drove up next to treptow and further argued. beard admitted he drew his weapon.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Good show, BTW
[info]joelrosenberg
2007-12-31 03:10 pm UTC (link)
Nope; at this point, we don't know who goes to trial first. Hell, we don't know if either or both of Beard and Treptow will waive their Constitutional rights to a speedy trial.

The drive by shooting charge, in the context of the grand jury finding that there wasn't any reason to charge Treptow with assault -- and that, therefore, he engaged in an act of self-defense -- is, well, Kafkaesque. It implicitly -- and insanely -- argues that self-defense involving shooting from a car is a crime.

There's no question, after all, that Treptow shot Beard, and that he deliberately took out his gun, pointed it at Beard, pulled the trigger, and that a bullet hit Beard. If that wasn't self-defense, it was -- at least -- an assault, if not attempted murder.

One doesn't have to be a legal mastermind to know that one's not allowed to shoot somebody simply for bad driving or using naughty words, after all.

But the grand jury -- even though they were allowed to consider evidence, like hearsay, that can't be used in court -- refused to indict Treptow for the crime that, if he didn't shoot in self-defense, he clearly would have committed.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ua_dubhne
2007-12-31 12:41 am UTC (link)
Inside info tells me Beard has already been offered a Federal LEO job, and is just being put on hold till this is cleared up.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]joelrosenberg
2007-12-31 12:43 am UTC (link)
Sheesh.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Take this to the street?
(Anonymous)
2007-12-31 05:33 pm UTC (link)
Shouldn't we (the law abiding citizens) finally speak up?! Publicly? If this "public servant" comes to a court house accompanied by his LI "cheerleaders", aren't we also obligated to help morally (and financially of course) to Martin Treptow and show up there too? It can be too late.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Take this to the street?
[info]joelrosenberg
2007-12-31 05:42 pm UTC (link)
I'm a big advocate of shining light on this; that's about all I want to say on that for now.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Treptow Details and Theory
[info]refugee50s
2007-12-31 07:16 pm UTC (link)
For those who, like me, do not absorb information well through our ears, Mitch has the details of the case, legal analysis, and a summary of his theory, over at Shot in the Dark.

Anoka County’s actions so far - the Grand Jury, the (arguably) potemkin indictments combined with the Grand Jury’s *refusal* to indict for any type of assault or attempted murder - might tend to indicate that the county is punching its procedural tickets, to…:

* keep the county attorney from looking like he’s selling a cop down the river
* help shield Anoka County (and, maybe, Robbinsdale) from civil litigation after the criminal cases are resolved.

So to sum up: Anoka County, under pressure to do something about the case, brings three indictments against Treptow that pretty much any lawyer can see will be relative cakewalks to win in court. It’s a CYA exercise, whose denouement won’t take place in a courtroom.

At least, not a criminal one.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Treptow Details and Theory
[info]bigcuz
2008-01-08 04:23 pm UTC (link)
"Anoka County, under pressure to do something about the case, brings three indictments against Treptow that pretty much any lawyer can see will be relative cakewalks to win in court."

Yeah, and ignore the fact that a decent lawyer will require at least $10,000 before you even get to court.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Treptow Details and Theory
(Anonymous)
2008-01-08 06:28 pm UTC (link)
I'm not ignoring it at all. As I noted in my blog, it's a given. Defending oneself from a felony is ALWAYS expensive. Preferable to a dead wife, I think, but you be the judge. As it were.

But it's a lot cheaper to defend - successfully - a "cakewalk" than, say, a case where you've left a bloody glove in the garden.

That's why I've been trying to plug the Treptow fund.

I'm told, FWIW, that attorneys frequently give a nice price break for high-profile cases. Publicity is the best advertising there is. Especially if you win.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Treptow Details and Theory
[info]joelrosenberg
2008-01-08 06:30 pm UTC (link)
I agree, fwiw.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…