Cop and CCW Shooter Indicted

[bear71]

"However if he was totally at fault, why was the civilian charged?"

Don't prosecuters basically throw out as many possible charges as they can to whomever and whenever and then let things sort themselves out along the way.

From my understanding as a Minnesota resident, if you discharge a firearm in self defense you are guilty until you can prove your innocence.

 

[Trebor]

However if he was totally at fault, why was the civilian charged?

The local law enforcement community looking out for one of it's own, perhaps?

That is just speculation on my part. I have no real knowledge of the facts of the case and admit the same.

 

[VARifleman]

From the statements of unrelated parties, it seems like mr undercover wasn't telling the truth about the others's actions.

 

[LAK]

If the quoted statements referenced to in the articles posted by NASCAR_MAN are accurate and Beard got out of his car and approached Treptow with a a pistol, it seems that this was not "road rage" or some sort of mutual combat, and Treptow did what many people would do under the same circumstances. Guess we shall have to wait see.

And reading the Lonzisero / Borowsky and Labidou case on a similar thread it seems that the only difference here is that Beard was on his own and had a handgun instead of a knife.

-------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[jfh]

I've followed this case closely--being a Minnesotan and all, and someone who has been a bit active in promoting 2nd A individual-right perspectives here.

First, remember that from the git-go--the first law passed four years ago, later amended slightly--the StarTribune and the fearmongers first promoted blood in the streets. When that didn't happen, they made a concerted effort to find CHL licenses' violations--which can only be done in a annual report done by agency heads--and they have highly promoted any incidents in which CHLr's did "wrong." At least one poster here (now inactive, I think) used his legally-carried gun to fend off a car-jacking and IIRC no written report of the incident was ever completed by Mpls. Police.

Since there was no blood in the streets, there has been declining anxiety among the generally-liberal (metro) public as they go on to agonize about gas prices, etc--but the generally-'liberal' psyche has been primed to hear about a CHL'r out of control.

So, when this incident happened last summer it got prime-time coverage immediately. The news got even bigger when Treptow was released two days later without charges. Beard's boss--the Robbinsdale Police Chief--was quoted in the paper as saying how Beard had repeatedly expressed to him how sorry he was--with no elaboration of what he had to be sorry about.

Among other things that have come out along the way is that Beard may well have been on duty--but he was not in his city; he was returning from having lunch with his fiance (at home) in yet a third city.

The fiance works for Fox 9 news here, and several avid politico-CHL-ers maintain the Station has done biased reporting--including digging out an old police report on the wife, which suggests she might have a mouth on her, and using 'secret resource' techniques that are less than a bit judicious. They also maintain that the Judicial-LEO community appears to be working on protecting their own. In light of the fact that Beard--the cop got to have a statement read to the GJ and to not be directly questioned, while both Treptows testified for a couple of days or so--that observation may have some merit.

The news report quoted in the opening post, when combined with the addendums by Nascar Man from a later revision--is the most complete public account of what 'actually happened.' I am astounded it came out of the StarTribune, but they are in such a mess businesswise that they may finally be wising up that their editorial pontifications--the leftist / "progressive" viewpoint, and always antigun--maybe can be replaced with accurate reporting by a reporter who dug out the facts.

The trial will be in yet another location, to avoid bias--maybe it'll work. Two guys, both apparently well-qualified to carry firearms, didn't need to have a discussion about driving habits, and now they get to suffer the consequences.

I'm gonna donate to the Treptow defense fund.

Jim H.

 

[Richmond]

the facts

At this point, nobody here really knows what the facts are.

Don't prosecuters basically throw out as many possible charges as they can to whomever and whenever and then let things sort themselves out along the way.

Significantly, the prosecutor did not charge either case directly. Instead, a grand jury heard the evidence and issued indictments against both Beard and Treptow.

Generally, a prosecutor can steer a grand jury quite a bit. Still, the case went before the grand jury and they made their decision. They heard testimony, including Mrs. Treptow and Treptow himself. I don't believe the officer testified.

Treptow has been very vocal in describing events - you can see his interview on Minneapolis TV station KSTP here:

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S290343.shtml

Interview with man involved in road rage incident

Robbinsdale Police Officer Landon Beard was indicted on felony charges Thursday in connection to a road rage shooting last June in Coon Rapids.Driver, Martin Scott Treptow, was also indicted for shooting Beard.In an exclusive interview, Treptow told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS he shot the undercover officer in self-defense.Treptow, 35, said from the very beginning that he fired his weapon in self-defense in order to protect his wife and two children. A grand jury charged Treptow with drive by shooting, reckless discharge of a firearm and terroristic threats."I didn't pull my weapon first, I didn't pull mine out until he pulled his out until he pointed it at my wife and at myself," he said.Treptow claimed he shot Beard in the leg during a road rage incident on June 8."I don't think the charges are warranted because myself acting in self defense. I know what I did and I know I acted appropriately at the time," he explained.Treptow, a former security guard with a gun permit, knows it may be his word against a police officer’s. "He was just scared and he just did what he thought was the right thing to do at that moment to protect his family," said Treptow’s attorney, Kurt Glaser. "He’s faced with some other person who’s driving crazy down the road, confronts him, and pulls out a gun. He did exactly what he thought—and he was trained—to do."Treptow told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that the incident has changed his life."It's been really difficult on my wife especially with her being pregnant right now," he said.He also said it has been hard on his 6-year-old daughter who witnessed the incident."It's been hard on my daughter. My daughter has had a lot of nightmares, a lot of concerns expressed like what would have happened if he would have shot at us," Treptow said.Treptow’s main focus is to clear his name."I think at the end of the day if it goes to a jury trial I'll be found innocent," he said.If convicted of all charges, Treptow faces a maximum sentence of 17 years in prison.Beard has been placed on paid administrative leave. His attorney said Beard, who still has the bullet lodged in his leg, will plead not guilty to the charge of making terroristic threats.Beard's attorney says he and his client were "completely surprised" by the charges.

 

[VARifleman]

So Jim, do you then take it that Beard's statements that are used to criticize Treptow's actions by posters on the first page aren't quite accurate? Because for me once I read what was said by the other people who were there, I see a situation where Beard is lying and is having the press and his fellow cops back him up, while Treptow is being railroaded because he ended up shooting a cop [that had an anger problem].

 

[lacoochee]

Wow, I am starting to really appreciate Florida. If someone approaches you while you are in your own vehicle with a drawn weapon, even if that person is a cop as long as he does not identify himself, you are legally well within your rights to shoot them without fear of prosecution, civil or legal. So for those of you who think your state doesn't need any such law I disagree.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

 

[jfh]

VARifleman: I think you have it about right--i.e., criticisms of Treptow are overblown. At the same time, I think the Treptows (both) were actively involved in the "road rage" precursors. I'll bet the scenario went something like this:

1. Beard, fresh from his nooner, is flying back to work, and does a LEO privilege to avoid a line of traffic. That is, he drives illegally, knowing full well that if he is stopped, he will receive professional courtesy.

I have no trouble with that; that's the way the world works. But, it does suggest that, if this speculation is accurate, Beard is operating from a perspective of privilege.

2. The wife gives him her opinion of his driving, and Beard responds equally or pushes one step further. She apparently has not been hesitant to do that before in conflict situations, IF the garbage dug up on her from years earlier is to be believed.

3. Now the husband has to defend the wife from this scurrilous verbal attack, so he stops--and Beard stops, too--to discuss the matter of Mrs. Treptow's virtue. Treptow is the winner in this exchange of verbal wit.

4. They drive off again--and Beard doesn't let it go and go to work.

5. They shout at each other again--both husband and wife, and Beard-- and Beard again pursues, and not with the intent to act on LEO duties.

6. He pulls alongside--and I'll bet that, given the shouts quoted by the witness, he wasn't looking for his badge to display and command Treptow to pull over.

7. The shooting unfolds.

8. The Treptows--She has already called 911, BTW--leave the scene, but only to go to a nearby public space (gas station parking lot) to await the law.​

Obviously, this is purely speculation--but it does seem to me that Beard is the instigator of the incident with his privelged driving procedure. And, the higher standards argument for professionals must be considered. Beard fails on these counts, doesn't he? I think the news and the LEO community has done its best to portray Beard as relatively innocent--he's just a working stiff--and that the page 1 poster's comments show their bias, but primarily because of incomplete knowledge.

The inference of "politics" is all over this one. Fox 9 initially showed copies of the Treptow indictment with their address visible. See the twincitiescarry.com site for more 'insider' commentary....

Jim H.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

The officer is being held to the same standard everyone else is. Even if he is acquitted, which I doubt, he will probably be fired. However if he was totally at fault, why was the civilian charged? I think (based on the very limited information available) that it's a clear cut case of mutual combat. Both parties are at fault, and both parties are charged. And I have no doubt, that both parties believe they were acting properly.

I don't think there is any need to make this a race issue or a cop bashing issue. There is no evidence that Beard was acting under color of law. He's just another hothead with a gun. When one of you perfects the robocop artificial intelligence software and mates it with a very advanced robotic body, then and only then may you expect perfect conduct from everyone hired into a position of trust. As long as you hire human beings to do that job, you risk having them be susceptible to the same human weaknesses as everyone else.

Jeff

He should be held to a higher standard. He upholds the public trust in his job. That has been the case in other cases. Department Policy should help him dictate his actions. Such as getting in a situation like he was. In most cases it would be to call 911, identify himself as an officer and have a uniformed patrol car pull the person over.

I have a hard time believing that yelling, "I'm going to kill you, pull over!" is in that policy.

Secondly, waving a gun and badge and yelling I'm a cop.....isn't the way to do it either. Most people aren't going to recognize that. Which is why if an undercover needs help in a situation like that, he would call a uniformed car in.

 

[Jeff White]

usmarine0352_2005 said;

He should be held to a higher standard. He upholds the public trust in his job. That has been the case in other cases. Department Policy should help him dictate his actions. Such as getting in a situation like he was. In most cases it would be to call 911, identify himself as an officer and have a uniformed patrol car pull the person over.

Do you have one bit of evidence that Beard was acting under color of law? If you do, I suggest you present it now.

Beard's status a police officer has no more impact on this case then if he was a cab driver or a plumber on his way to another job. I suggest you look up Estate of Boliek v. Anne Arundel County, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11182 (Dist. Md. 2005). That case will give you a better understanding of what constitutes acting under color of law.

I don't know how many times I've read on this forum that CCW holders are to be automatically considered "one of the good guys" and because they jumped through all of the hoops required to get a CCW permit that they would never do anything to jeopardize it. Perhaps we should hold them to a higher standard too? I've got a better idea, let's just hold everyone to the same standard. It seems like the system is working.

What we have here are two people who should not have been permitted to own or possess firearms or sharp objects. Perhaps they shouldn't have been permitted to drive cars. Based on all of the available information, this is a clear cut case of mutual combat, both parties at fault and it looks like both parties will pay for their stupidity. Which is good, stupid should hurt.

I take the fact that a grand jury indicted both parties to mean that any attempt at political bias by a newspaper, the police department, or anyone else was soundly rebuffed. This story is about 3 adults who should have known better, proving that at that moment they were incapable of being more rational then a 10 year old throwing a temper tantrum. Too bad the grand jury didn't come up with any charges for Mrs. Treptow for her part in the fight.

Not everyone should be a cop and not everyone should have a CCW permit. The parties involved here failed to live up to their responsibilities as adults.

Almost all of the self defense scenarios I saw in 22 years as a cop were situations similar to this. Not always road rage, but in a bar or club, on a parking lot, in someone's home. It starts verbally and one of the parties involved has to continue. Both sides have opportunities to walk away and they don't avail themselves of them. The verbal dispute escalates to shoving, then punches, then maybe weapons are involved. Both sides claim self defense when the police arrive. Both sides whine and cry politics and favoritism when 1. they both are arrested or 2. there isn't any serious damage to anything but someone's pride and no one is arrested and they are sent on their separate ways.

Jeff

 

[jfh]

Jeff, I guess I differ a bit from your perspective on acting under color of law. I'm not disputing your interpretation of the legal issues for this subject--I don't know them. In fact, I'm going to have to learn more about this phrase.

However, I am addressing the notions--the myths, if you will--of the American psyche, so to speak. AFAICT, there is no doubt that the advanced 'knowledge' / skills / judgement that professionals have is widely held as an American virtue--from its inception, this country has advanced meritocracy as a virtue.

Our vocational identity is an integral part of our social identity. So, with those factors in mind, I find it almost inescapable to hold Beard to a higher standard--particularly since he claimed to be on duty, and that appears to be true. Your characterization of all parties as 'not living up to their adult responsibilities' is clearly accurate--but, what part of that general responsibility also falls into the 'professional' / meritocracy argument?

Both of these men had various opportunities to stop the escalation. Does Beard's professional knowledge of this factor hold him to a higher standard?

Jim H.

 

[NASCAR_MAN]

Jeff White
Almost all of the self defense scenarios I saw in 22 years as a cop were situations similar to this. Not always road rage, but in a bar or club, on a parking lot, in someone's home. It starts verbally and one of the parties involved has to continue. Both sides have opportunities to walk away and they don't avail themselves of them. The verbal dispute escalates to shoving, then punches, then maybe weapons are involved. Both sides claim self defense....
===================================================

And then again...there are those self-defense situations of which you hear nothing about. If you are in the right place...maybe you find a few shell casings, a distraught witness, or some blood...or the body of a Felon - but you never really know what happened. Because no one is talking - I figure they just want to get on with thier lives. Cops never hear about most of these events.

I submit to you that these may be the majority of self-defense scenarios, and I speculate this is so based on Gary Kleck's studies.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Mr. White, not to pick nits, but...

Do you have one bit of evidence that Beard was acting under color of law? If you do, I suggest you present it now.

Ahyuh, that would be from the statement by the officers' attorney, here:

Michael said Beard identified himself as an officer during the shooting.

One would surmise that identifying yourself as an officer means you are acting under the color of law.

I am curious, though, about Zundfolge's question:

Does just yelling out "Dammit I'm a COP!" constitute "identifying" one's self? Or would he have to produce a badge in order for it to count as "identifying himself as an officer"?

Could you enlighten us?

 

[Jeff White]

Both of these men had various opportunities to stop the escalation. Does Beard's professional knowledge of this factor hold him to a higher standard?

Didn't Treptow own a security company? Presumably he would also have professional knowledge, so going by your meritocracy statement, they both should be held to a higher standard. In fact Treptow claimed he was only acting as he had been trained. I guess we are supposed to accept that he only had training on how to end a confrontation with violence, not how to deescalate one.

Meritocracy is a load of manure and distinctly un-American. One thing I've learned by dealing with people is that it doesn't matter what their position in society is, they are all people. I have had a United States Senator look me in the eye and lie to me with a straight face, then have the nerve to suggest that I misunderstood him when I called him on it. I have seen a locally prominent minister who sits in the front row at city council meetings when they are discussing liquor licenses so he can get his microphone time to speak out against alcohol arrested for DUI coming back into town because he couldn't enjoy his personal vices at home. I can name a couple local attorneys who have been convicted for trafficking cocaine and stealing from their clients, I know of doctors who were convicted of abusing prescriptions drugs and defrauding insurance companies. Two judges from the next district to the West of me were convicted of DUI and obstructing justice after a professional football game. Name a profession and a little goggling will reveal that you can't judge the character of any man by his profession. There is no way to vet any profession. FBI and CIA agents and military people who have been subjected to intensive investigations of their background and character have turned out to be traitors and spies. Men and women who have aspired to be police officers and have passed intensive background investigations and psychological testing have turned out to be criminals.

People are people no matter what profession they choose. A few are good, a few are bad and most are good 99% of the time. That's why we should hold everyone to the same standard.

There is no information that Beard ever acted under color of law or in any official capacity. The fact that he was on duty and driving back to where he worked was immaterial except to the department he worked for as a possible policy violation. Road rage plain and simple. Road rage on the part of three adults, tow of whom it may be argued should have know better because of their jobs. Yet at that moment, I doubt that Beard was thinking, "I'm a police officer, I know how to handle this" nor was Treptow thinking; "I own a security company, I'm a responsible businessman, I know how to handle this."

I'm sure Beard was probably thinking; "That stupid [expletive deleted] woman, she can't talk to me like that! I'll show her!" And Treptow was probably thinking; That [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted] [racial slur deleted] he can't drive on the shoulder and mouth off to my wife, I'll show him!." Neither one of them was acting in their professional capacity. At that moment they were nothing more then two hotheads pushing a disagreement into a shooting.

Jeff

 

[ilbob]

I think it is time to let things play out in the courts.

Most of us think cops should be held to a higher standard, but it doesn't work that way in real life. Generally, they are held to a much lower standard, both in practice, and in many cases as a matter of law.

You have to live with things the way they actually are and not the way you might want them to be. Get over it, unless you can get the law changed.

 

[ilbob]

Neither one of them was acting in their professional capacity. At that moment they were nothing more then two hotheads pushing a disagreement into a shooting.

Jeff

No offense Jeff, and I really do mean that, but how can you claim that and in another breath claim 24/7 copness?

 

[Jeff White]

And then again...there are those self-defense situations of which you hear nothing about. If you are in the right place...maybe you find a few shell casings, a distraught witness, or some blood...or the body of a Felon - but you never really know what happened. Because no one is talking - I figure they just want to get on with thier lives. Cops never hear about most of these events.

I submit to you that these may be the majority of self-defense scenarios, and I speculate this is so based on Gary Kleck's studies.

Gary Kleck interviewed prisoners, people who aren't exactly known for telling the truth. There certainly aren't enough unsolved murders of criminals to buy off on the idea that private citizens shoot millions of them a year. 2006 UCR shows 240 some odd justifiable homicides by civilians. Sorry but Kleck's work is all guesswork when he tries to come up with numbers of defensive uses of firearms. It's the same as saying that reptilian creatures from UFOs are controlling the world's governments. Interesting to some people, but no way to prove or disprove it. There is about as much physical evidence to back either claim. Too many people in the gun culture believe those numbers because it reinforces their own beliefs about how things are. It's the same mechanism that makes the people who listen to Coast to Coast Am and believe that our leaders are actually reptilians from outer space, that fits their beliefs.

I am curious, though, about Zundfolge's question:
Quote:
Does just yelling out "Dammit I'm a COP!" constitute "identifying" one's self? Or would he have to produce a badge in order for it to count as "identifying himself as an officer"?

Could you enlighten us?

Yelling out "Dammit I'm a COP!" proves nothing. Anyone can say it. What police action was he taking? Did he threaten to arrest Treptow? I would say that Treptow would not be guilty of violating any of the laws like obstruction and he wasn't charged with any of the enhanced laws for shooting a police officer. There was no way he could have reasonably known Beard was an officer by Beard's yelling "Dammit I'm a COP!" If Beard had been driving a marked squad or had held up his identification when he yelled it, then he might have been acting under color of law. The mere fact he was on duty would not be enough in it's self to prove he was acting as anything but an enraged motorist. If he identified himself as an officer and attempted to take police action i.e. arrests from a fight he started, then he would have acting under color of law. Take for instance the old cartoon of a New York officer grabbing an apple from a street vendors cart. He's committing theft plain and simple. It's the same as if anyone else stole an apple off the cart. The only thing his on duty status does is expose him to additional administrative sanctions from his employer. However if the same New York officer walks up to the apple vendor and says, "I'm taking this apple for official business." and takes the apple, then he's improperly using his position to steal, acting under color of law.

Jeff

 

[Jeff White]

ilbob said;

No offense Jeff, and I really do mean that, but how can you claim that and in another breath claim 24/7 copness?

None taken. Most agencies make 24/7 copness a condition of employment. That doesn't mean that Beard was acting in any official capacity when he started the road rage incident.

Jeff

 

[ilbob]

Yelling out "Dammit I'm a COP!" proves nothing. Anyone can say it.

But somehow doing so why busting down a door at 3:00 am establishes ones identity firmly as a LEO?

 

[lance22]

The witnesses indicate that Beard said he was going to kill them [Treptows]. That he brandished a weapon in compliment to the verbal threat means that taking the threats at face value is reasonable.

While the Treptows did aggravate the situation, they did not escalate to the threat to violence as did Mr. Beard. They did not willingly participate in a violence scenario as did Mr. Beard. The Treptows were on the phone with the police while Mr. Beard was about to make good on his threats.

The Media routinely villifies LEO's, but not where they stand against permit holders. Predictably, the Red Star pontificates guilt upon the permit holder and his wife. They require no burden of proof, but have ample comfort in their bias.

Mr. Beard may well have killed the Treptows that day had Mr. Treptow not been armed.

 

[NASCAR_MAN]

Jeff White Moderator wrote:

Gary Kleck interviewed prisoners, people who aren't exactly known for telling the truth. There certainly aren't enough unsolved murders of criminals to buy off on the idea that private citizens shoot millions of them a year.
===========================================

That is a total misrepresentation of facts on your part - utter baloney. Now...why don't you start representing the facts truthfully?

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Do you have one bit of evidence that Beard was acting under color of law? If you do, I suggest you present it now.

Jeff, if he did indeed yell, "I'm a cop" then he was acting under the color of the law and expecting Treptow to listen to his commands, since he was then identified as a cop.

http://officer.com/web/online/Internal-Affairs-News/Illinois-Officer-Fired-After-Taunting-Protesters/5$39176

"There's a code of conduct even off duty that the officers are bound to, and the rules and regulations of the Des Plaines Police Department clearly state that," Prandini said. "I just can't have a police officer going out and treating the public like he did in this incident -- the profanities, the verbal assault with the woman."

Cops being held to a higher standard is similar to when a judge who is charged and convicted of a crime may get a harsher penalty, because he was in the public trust and should have known better.

 

[colubrid]

sounds to me like the cop is a hot head and i would have responded the same way if he acted like that. I hope he gets fired and pays his dues to society.

 

[Jeff White]

Mr. Beard may well have killed the Treptows that day had Mr. Treptow not been armed.

One might also say that the Treptows might not have escalated the situation if they weren't armed. Two parties share responsibility for this, and it looks like two parties will be punished. Which is the way it should be.

NASCAR_MAN said;

That is a total misrepresentation of facts on your part - utter baloney. Now...why don't you start representing the facts truthfully?

I would suggest that you take a couple classes on statistics and research. then read the methodology that Kleck used. He had no facts on which to base his theory that there were over a million defensive uses of firearms a year. He took statements from criminals that couldn't be verified and simply extrapolated them to come up with those numbers. There aren't enough corpses of dead criminals that the circumstances of their deaths are unknown to back up those numbers. There aren't enough people showing up in the ER with gunshot wounds to back up his numbers.

The fact is that guns have no, none, nada, zip effect on the crime rate. You can extrapolate the numbers from statements made by people in prison all you want. But it doesn't prove a thing.

The only facts involved in Kleck's research is that it is a guess and not even an educated guess.

BTW just because I'm a moderator doesn't mean I have to drink all of the kool aide the pro-gun side puts out any more then I have to accept what the antis put out. I care about the truth, not propaganda.

Jeff