Man Suspected Of Shooting Officer Released

imported post

http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_159164139.html

Jun 8, 2007 3:39 pm US/Central
Man Suspected Of Shooting Officer Released (AP) Anoka, Minn.
Anoka County authorities have released without charges a man suspected of shooting and wounding an undercover Robbinsdale police officer.

Martin Treptow,35, says he fired to protect his wife and two toddlers inside the family SUV.

The Anoka County attorney's office says Treptow was released after Thursday's incident in Coon Rapids, but the investigation was ongoing.

Coon Rapids police say Treptow and a 27-year old officer in an unmarked car got into a dispute on the road. After angry words and gestures, Treptow pulled his SUV up to the driver side of the other car, stopped at a light. Treptow says as the driver got out of his, he pulled out a weapon.

"We're about three feet away from each other and he's pointing the gun at my wife, so it was a tough situation, where I couldn't drive away at that particular moment, I had to defend my family," Treptow said.

Treptow says the man was in street clothes and never identified himself as a police officer. With his wife in the passenger seat, Treptow fired three shots at the officer, hitting him in both legs and grazing his arm.

The 27-year-old officer was treated and released at a Minneapolis hospital for wounds to his legs and arm.

The man's two children were also in the vehicle at the time. He had a permit to carry a weapon.

(© 2007 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. )

imported post

If the shooter's story is factual, this sounds like a justified act of self defense. Two things I wonder wbout, however:

1. What was the nature of the angry gestures, etc. Did Treptow participate in the exchange or provoke things? If so, he is still justified in my mind, but he showed poor judgment and the authorities will make hay of it. If...

2. Did he fire across his wife's lap? If so, that sounds kind of risky. It was certainly rude to his wife's eardrums (beats being dead, of course). Did Treptow have any options besides shooting? Could he have gunned the accelerator when the other fellow stepped out of his vehicle, perhaps? (Not if it was a busy intersection.)

imported post

Watch the video it has a lot more details.

imported post

longwatch wrote:

Watch the video it has a lot more details.

Click to expand...

Okay, a little clearer. According to the second video segment, Treptow "flipped off" the undercover cop for cutting him off. Lesson learned: do not flip people off in traffic. Still, itdoesn't justify someone getting out of their car and drawing up on your wife!

Also, Treptow says he did not have the option to drive away. He doesn't say why, though. He also says he leaned over his wife to shoot out the right side.

Some other notes: He doesn't seem to be bruised up the way you might be after spending a night with cops after shooting one of them. That's nice.

Also, I wonder if his lawyer told him that speaking to the press was a good idea.

imported post

What ever happened to, "An armed society is a polite society?"

Idiots like this give us all a bad name.

imported post

If treptow had pulled the gun first, why would this guy have stopped? The only reason I could see would be the officer getting outside his car to put more between him and treptow, but I do not believe that happened.

I think the officer pulled first here, but I am sure some will disagree.

The one thing I am happy about with this story is that treptow was released, it is good to see that the department is looking at this objectively, and not as a cop killer.

But any way you look at it, a gun should never have came out here, one of these two should have ended this fued by going in a different direction, slowing down, whatever, a driving argument should never end like this.

imported post

Just a comment based on the rusty immits of my memory, but it seems to me that the antis' dire prediction of shootouts over traffic disputes really only seems to be a problem when there is a hot-headed cop involved...You know, the ones Sara says should be the only ones.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Just a comment based on the rusty immits of my memory, but it seems to me that the antis' dire prediction of shootouts over traffic disputes really only seems to be a problem when there is a hot-headed cop involved...You know, the ones Sara says should be the only ones.

Click to expand...

I'd say that's right-on... At least in the majority of the cases we've been seeing in the media lately.

And it wouldn't be any less justified if the LEO had been in uniform... there's just no cause for anyone to point their weapon at someone else'swife over a traffic incident. Stop the threat.

imported post

longwatch wrote:

http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_159164139.html

Jun 8, 2007 3:39 pm US/Central
Man Suspected Of Shooting Officer Released (AP) Anoka, Minn.
Anoka County authorities have released without charges a man suspected of shooting and wounding an undercover Robbinsdale police officer.

Martin Treptow,35, says he fired to protect his wife and two toddlers inside the family SUV.

...
"We're about three feet away from each other and he's pointing the gun at my wife, so it was a tough situation, where I couldn't drive away at that particular moment, I had to defend my family," Treptow said.

Treptow says the man was in street clothes and never identified himself as a police officer. With his wife in the passenger seat, Treptow fired three shots at the officer, hitting him in both legs and grazing his arm.

The 27-year-old officer was treated and released at a Minneapolis hospital for wounds to his legs and arm.

Click to expand...

1. I don't believe that the undercover officer was pointing a gun at the wife. That makes no sense. He and Treptow were doing the road rage dance and it isn't logical that the cop would want to assault the wife for it.

2. Why didn't the undercover officer shoot back? That's dman mysterious. Guy's a cop, he thinks there is a situation escalated enough to get out ofhis car andpull out his weapon, he points it at something, then gets shot at--but doesn't return fire? Was he drunk, high, etc?

The CRPD is hiding something.

imported post

Sounds like the plainclothes LEO was pointing his weapon at the passenger side of Treptow's vehicle, not necessarily at the guy's wife. Nevertheless, whether or not the barrel was pointed precisely at the guy's wife, or perhaps a few inches in front of her, either one is far too close for comfort. And does it matter, anyway? Anywhere in the general direction of me or my loved ones is going to result in bad things happening.

Seems to me there are a number of lessons here, among them being that, in the midst of the uncivil behavior so frequently encountered on the highways, one would be far better off to "just let it go". Also, learn to "stay the hell inside your car". Anyone getting out of his vehicle approaching mine in similar circumstances is going to be viewed as a probable threat. Displaying a gun and pointing it in my (or my family's) general direction is going to force my hand. I don't think I'd be inclined to - under the circumstances - inquire "Excuse me, sir, but are you by any chance an undercover law enforcement officer? And if you are, could you please put that gun away?"

Sounds like both of them did some stupid stuff in the heat of anger, but the one who stepped out of his vehicle waving his gun around is lucky to be breathing.

imported post

Chopper Dad wrote:

Sounds like the plainclothes LEO was pointing his weapon at the passenger side of Treptow's vehicle, not necessarily at the guy's wife. Nevertheless, whether or not the barrel was pointed precisely at the guy's wife, or perhaps a few inches in front of her, either one is far too close for comfort. And does it matter, anyway? Anywhere in the general direction of me or my loved ones is going to result in bad things happening.

Seems to me there are a number of lessons here, among them being that, in the midst of the uncivil behavior so frequently encountered on the highways, one would be far better off to "just let it go". Also, learn to "stay the hell inside your car". Anyone getting out of his vehicle approaching mine in similar circumstances is going to be viewed as a probable threat. Displaying a gun and pointing it in my (or my family's) general direction is going to force my hand. I don't think I'd be inclined to - under the circumstances - inquire "Excuse me, sir, but are you by any chance an undercover law enforcement officer? And if you are, could you please put that gun away?"

Sounds like both of them did some stupid stuff in the heat of anger, but the one who stepped out of his vehicle waving his gun around is lucky to be breathing.

Click to expand...

I would agreewith almost all of your analysis/speculation. Especially about them both doing stupid stuff. From the briefest of brief description of the details of the full road range event, at this point I think we have a goof with a gun and a heavy badge, though we need more details to be sure.

I still can't figure out why the cop did not shoot back.

And how did the thing end after the 3 shots? According to another reporting, Streptow drove off then stopped at a gas station to call 911. So he left the shootee to bleed out? And he was able to drive off after shooting 3 rounds but was not able to drive off before the unmarked car fully stopped alongside his SUV, thereby exposing his family to God knows what? Yeah, he's a goof with a gun alright.

I wonder what kind of unmarked car it was? And whether the LEO wason duty.

Tons missing so far on thisone. I say it's a miracle the wife wasn't blasted in a crossfire.

imported post

You're certainly welcome to disagree with my assessment, if you like; I won't hold it against you!

I can't say I agree with your assessment that the guy's a "goof with a gun", however; notwithstanding the fact that he foolishly participated in the unpleasantness leading up to the actual gun encounter, are you suggesting that at the point the undercover LEO - to all appearances a civilian - pulled a gun and pointed it in his general direction he should have done something other than what he did? I don't know that I'd feel more comfortable about simply starting to drive away at that point, even if I was in a position to do so. My immediate thought, I suspect, would have been "This guy intends to shoot me - right here, right now!" and I, too, would have reacted to stop the threat. Attempting to drive away would not have neutralized the threat, and may well, instead, have simply provoked the guy to start firing immediately, just as any predator will tend to attack immediately as his prey turns to run. Last I heard, it's pretty tough to outrun a bullet.

The fact is that, despite what came before, the moment the undercover LEO decided to exit his car - gun in hand - there was no longer any time to think, only react. Anyone who does such a thing - exiting his vehicle with a firearm in the midst of a traffic altercation - should be clear as he does so that "the angels are singin' his name"; this guy's lucky they weren't singing too louldy. (And yes, your "goof with a gun" guy certainly was, as well.)

As far as whether the cop was on duty or not, and what kind of unmarked car he was driving, I believe those details were addressed in the video link.

I'm confident, Hank, that you'd never involve yourself in a highway incident such as this, but - should you ever feel the need to defend yourself from someone who's menacing you with a gun - tell me please that you won't simply stand around there afterwards waiting, hoping against hope that 3 shots were enough. If the threat has been substantially minimized long enough to allow you and your loved ones the opportunity to safely remove yourselves from harm's way and call 9-1-1, I trust you will do so, the prospect of leaving "the shootee to bleed out" be damned. Get the cops and the EMTs there as quickly as you can, but get yourself and your loved ones to safety first. In spite of the fact that you seem to enjoy ruffling a few feathers around here from time to time, I can't imagine that anyone here would be happy to hear that, out of concern for the poor bastard "bleeding out", you ended up "taking one" for the Gipper!

imported post

Chopper Dad wrote:

You're certainly welcome to disagree with my assessment, if you like; I won't hold it against you!

Click to expand...

You'd be surprised. Some folks can't handle disagreement....


Chopper Dad wrote:

I can't say I agree with your assessment that the guy's a "goof with a gun", however; notwithstanding the fact that he foolishly participated in the unpleasantness leading up to the actual gun encounter, are you suggesting that at the point the undercover LEO - to all appearances a civilian - pulled a gun and pointed it in his general direction he should have done something other than what he did?

Click to expand...

Oh, no. Of course not. Once Treptow was a stopped and the other guy's gun came out, the die was cast. Treptow's options, assuming he had no clue the guy was a cop, were extremely limited. Especially since he was still in the car.

I call him a goof with a gun because he put himself, or at least his wife and two kids in the position to be approached by an unknown assailant. An assailant who could be armed. According to the story, the cop (unknown at the time, let's say) approached from the passenger side. Seems to me to be poor tactics on Treptow's part. He stops his car, while doing a road rage dance with the other guy, then lets the other guy come through his wife to get at him. Why? Why stop? Why stop there? :shock:

Because he had a gun. That's why I think he did it. And because he wasn't thinking too good.

He's a goof with a gun because he put his wife and kids in the middle of a potential melee. Just yesterday Tomahawk related a story about a road rage incident where he was armed (as a passenger) but his driver was instructed to and elected to actually avoid the angry road rager by driving in the opposite direction. Good work by Tomahawk and his driver. It was unknown whether the other guy was armed. But what was known was that FTF altercation was a) not a good thing, and b) avoidable. Goodwork by Tomahawk and driver. No hits, no runs, no bleeding.

I'm not convinced yet that Treptow couldn't have avoided the static and inflexible position he was in--hell, he actually drove up to the unmarked car. and that is totally atrocious when one considers his wife and kids were in the car.

Chopper Dad wrote:

The fact is that, despite what came before, the moment the undercover LEO decided to exit his car - gun in hand - there was no longer any time to think, only react. Anyone who does such a thing - exiting his vehicle with a firearm in the midst of a traffic altercation - should be clear as he does so that "the angels are singin' his name"; this guy's lucky they weren't singing too louldy. (And yes, your "goof with a gun" guy certainly was, as well.)

Click to expand...

No one can disagreewith that. Once the gun came out the other one had to come out too. It was in an amplifying feedback loop at that point. Only escalations were occurring. And that is even taking Treptow's premise that the cop pulled first.


Chopper Dad wrote:

As far as whether the cop was on duty or not, and what kind of unmarked car he was driving, I believe those details were addressed in the video link.

Click to expand...

OK. Thanks I couldn't watch the video link. My error.


Chopper Dad wrote:

I'm confident, Hank, that you'd never involve yourself in a highway incident such as this, but - should you ever feel the need to defend yourself from someone who's menacing you with a gun - tell me please that you won't simply stand around there afterwards waiting, hoping against hope that 3 shots were enough. If the threat has been substantially minimized long enough to allow you and your loved ones the opportunity to safely remove yourselves from harm's way and call 9-1-1, I trust you will do so, the prospect of leaving "the shootee to bleed out" be damned. Get the cops and the EMTs there as quickly as you can, but get yourself and your loved ones to safety first. In spite of the fact that you seem to enjoy ruffling a few feathers around here from time to time, I can't imagine that anyone here would be happy to hear that, out of concern for the poor bastard "bleeding out", you ended up "taking one" for the Gipper!

Click to expand...

Well, you're right, Chopper Dad. I am committed to never getting involved in any road rage incident while armed. I think they all have poor success ratesand tremendous negative outcome potential. But certainly, I would have escaped at the earliest instant from any shooting situation. But, the earliest instant would be, um, before the die is cast?

So I was just wondering whether Treptow was trying to initially just split. I don't advocate Treptow taking any unnecessary chances after he has apparently incapacitated the assailant. Yes, he should book. But Treptow is the foolish person who positioned himself to a place of jeopardy in the first place. I can't get away from that conclusion.

I think we're missing important details of the story, of course, to nail everything down (Like who pulled first?) But, I thinkI have enough to call Treptow an irresponsible person if heindeed diddrive his SUVupalongside the assailant with his wife between him and a road rager. That's idiocy.

My hunch ishe still wanted to dance with the cop. :celebrate



As far as ole HankTtaking one for the Gip not making anyone happy, I think you might be, er, optimistic. :uhoh:



P.S.1. I still cant figure out why the LEO didn't shoot back.

P.S. 2. I wonder how wifey's eardrums are doing?

imported post

I have a hypothesis: the LEO didn't shoot back because he never intended to shoot, pulled it just to intimidate, and therefore wasn't prepared when Treptow called his bluff. He may have been totally surprised that his intended bullying victim didn't just take it; he may not even have had a round chambered, who knows. The shock of thinking you're on top and suddenly finding out you're on the ass end of the deal can make some people freeze momentarily. Like when your mom catches you with your hand in the cookie jar.

imported post

From the way the video flowed, it seemed to me that the unmarked car was that dark red Monte Carlo...notice how that, and the white dodge SUV, are the only vehicles they show.

I'm from that area originally, and that doesn't surprise me in the least. I try to be a supported of LEOs and I will be one myself soon enough, but I definately think the cop tried to throw his weight around and got what was coming to him.

Don't get me wrong, they were both being stupid by road-ragin....but the fact that he was released w/o charges tells me that the dept. knows damn well that their boy screwed up.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

I have a hypothesis: the LEO didn't shoot back because he never intended to shoot, pulled it just to intimidate, and therefore wasn't prepared when Treptow called his bluff.

Click to expand...

I can see that a civilianmight have a mindset that he wasn't going to shoot a gun he was pulling out of a holster--but not a cop on duty. Too much training. Maybe LEO 229 could comment on thisquestion: Whatis the probability an on duty LEO pulling a gun with the sole intention ofbrandishing to intimidate?


Tomahawk wrote:

He may have been totally surprised that his intended bullying victim didn't just take it;

Click to expand...

Well, I'd agree that the LEO was surprised. But it really hasn't been established that he would have been bullying Treptow. They were doing the road rage dance, after all. But my understanding of police training in this area is that it'sall about appropriate and instantaneous response to an armed threat--especially when surprised. I think that LEO training, more than anyone's, would indicate instantaneous retun fire when faced with close range gunfire.

That's the mystery, so far, on this one. How is it that the officer could forsake all his training in the face of a bona fide armed threat?

I didn't think of it yesterday but the only thing that makes sense is that the cop saw the wife and kids and decided to hold fire for fear of hitting them, he was concerned over their safety.

Which, of course, would be quite ironic since Treptow started shooting for exactly the opposite reason. At least he said he did.

If that might be true it just shows how escalating situations like the road rage dance/catching up to the car/stopping at the car/one guy getting out/one guy pulling first/one guy pulling second/ one guy shooting sequence are doomed to have bad outcomes--they keep getting worse until something sufficiently bad happens to end them.

Tomahawk wrote:

he may not even have had a round chambered, who knows.

Click to expand...

That's a novel idea. A cop on duty with a gun and no chambered round. It's good to think of any possiblities but he would have had to...well, it's unlikely. Cops don't walk around on duty without one in the pipe.


Tomahawk wrote:

The shock of thinking you're on top and suddenly finding out you're on the ass end of the deal can make some people freeze momentarily. Like when your mom catches you with your hand in the cookie jar.

Click to expand...

Yeah. But what are the odds that a guy who is extensively trained:

a) to not freeze

b) to shoot back at a shooter as quickly as possible

would freeze momentarily at exactly that moment? Especially if he wasa bully?

If anything, a bully would be biased to be quick on the trigger.

I hope some more details come out. It's an interesting case. I agree with DreQo, though. The fact that the police released Treptow is meaningful and may very well indicate that the LEO screwed up somehow. That's why I thought of the possiblity that he was impaired in some manner that would have been discovered when the cop was treated. In any event, the CRPD is hiding something. That's for sure.

imported post

HankT, are we assuming the the LEO was on duty,I didn't see stated that he was.

If he was on duty, why didn't he just light'm up?

imported post

1st freedom wrote:

HankT, are we assuming the the LEO was on duty,I didn't see stated that he was.

Click to expand...

The reporter in thevideo on the article Longwatch posted a link to said something like "investigators say the officer was on duty but don't reveal if he was on a case." Something like that.


1st freedom wrote:

If he was on duty, why didn't he just light'm up?

Click to expand...

I'd say that is a good question. But there is some indication that the LEO wasn't chasing Treptow but rather that Treptow drove up to the LEO's car.

Can't tell for sure yet. But I think maybe Treptow wanted to dance some more. :cuss:

I hope they release some more details. This is an interesting one.