Outrageous injustice

It's not often that one sees the attempted railroading in Minnesota of an innocent man by the criminal justice system happen in real time, but to also see it seemingly being done with the active help of one of the local major news outlets in Minneapolis is both disheartening and unconscionable. (That's right, it's my opinion that one of the local TV stations there is deliberately slanting its coverage of a story in order to help one of the main subjects of that same story. After reading this article, I hope that it's your opinion, as well.) I believe that that innocent man needs some help in fighting back against that railroading, so I'm going to do what I can to help by exposing just what is being done to him.

First, today's update on the story that myself and many other local Minnesota bloggers have been following very closely. Martin Treptow was indicted today on 3 felony charges stemming from his defending himself, his pregnant wife and two small children from Landen Beard, an off-duty and out-of-jurisdiction undercover Robbinsdale, Minnesota police officer, in an apparent road-rage incident in Coon Rapids, Minnesota last summer .

Want a sample of just how biased at least one media outlet has been in reporting this case? Remember how I had previously written about Fox9 News's coverage, and how they conveniently forgot to mention Beard's name in their coverage of the story while putting Treptow's name and face all over their airwaves, and how they also neglected to disclose their little conflict of interest, as Beard was the fiance (and now, apparently, the spouse) of one of their employees? The games continue, apparently.

Watch this clip of the update report Fox9 did this evening on the story. Notice how they have lots of video shots of Treptow, and how they manage to show a slow pan of the page of the indictment showing his name and full address, not once, but twice, in the report. No "1600 block of Pennsylania Avenue" courtesy for Mr. Treptow, as that is usually how addresses of presumed innocent people are reported. As if that weren't bad enough, the "objective" geniuses at the station actually used a freeze-frame of the page of the indictment with Treptow's address as the picture to click on to watch the video on Fox9's website, until they were clued in to their stupidity by outraged visitors to their site and changed it.

By way of comparison, note in the video how Fox9 finally mentions Beard by name, although they refer to him as "Police Officer Landen Beard", which implies that his job somehow had something to do with how the incident unfolded. Let's see if Fox9 puts Beard's face and address all over their report tomorrow night, after his turn in court. After all, there's two parties in the case, each accusing the other of similar behavior. One of the parties shouldn't be treated differently just because of his occupation, which obviously had nothing to do with the incident, as Beard was off-duty, in plainclothes, and driving a regular car with civilian plates. How was Treptow supposed to know that Beard was a cop? All he saw, according to him, was a raging motorist pointing a gun at his wife, so he took the action that he thought necessary at the time.

Fox9 even goes so far as to show video of a marked cruiser with its lights on when discussing the altercation, as if to somehow show that Treptow fired on a uniformed cop in a cruiser, which was not the case at all, as discussed above. Then, just in case some mentally deficient viewer didn't already get the hint, when the reporter states that "Treptow maintains that he didn't know that the man was a police officer", they helpfully show an extreme close-up of the front of a cruiser, with its "POLICE" license plate surrounded by flashing lights filling the screen. Fox9 is again being disingenuous, in my opinion, by seemingly trying to hammer home the point that Treptow should have been some kind of "Amazing Kreskin" type of psychic in somehow knowing that the fellow pointing the gun at his wife was a cop. BEARD WAS OFF DUTY, IN PLAINCLOTHES, AND IN A CIVILIAN CAR WITH CIVILIAN PLATES. Why should his being employed as a cop have any bearing whatsoever to do with the facts or the adjudication of this case? I don't know how to state these facts any clearer. Honestly, it's kind of sad that I even have to go to such lengths in order to clear up Fox9's, um, "sloppy" journalism in this case. Actually, the color "yellow" comes to mind when reviewing Fox9's coverage, if you catch my drift.

Finally, as a sop to the pile of complaints Fox9 must have received from their previous attempts at covering the story, they throw in at the very end of the report that Beard "is related" to a station employee. Well, a second cousin is "related". An elderly aunt in Texas is "related". I believe that "he is married to an employee at the station" would be the proper disclosure here, as a spousal relationship is a much more potentially sticky conflict of interest than merely having one's distant relative involved in the story.

Now, on to some other analysis of what happened in court today:

Treptow was charged with three felonies. Let's analyze how they fit (or don't fit) the facts of the case, as we know them today (Mostly according to Treptow, as Beard isn't talking. More on that in a bit):

Drive By Shooting - This charge implies that Treptow is some kind of gangbanger who was settling a drug dispute. Once Treptow neutralized the apparently deadly threat to his family, he removed them from the perceived danger by driving a few blocks to a gas station, while his wife immediately called 911 to report the incident while they were on the move, and well before they arrived. When they reached the station, they parked and waited quietly for the police to arrive. Hardly what I think of when the term "drive by" is mentioned.

Reckless Discharge Of A Firearm - When confronted with what he thought was an immediate deadly situation involving his family, Treptow drew his legal weapon and shot the intruder, neutralizing him, while not harming any innocent bystanders. Why is that somehow "reckless"? It actually seems to be the way that a defensive shooting should go, if one is unlucky enough to be involved in one.

Terroristic Threats - This to me is the silliest charge of the bunch. Treptow has admitted honking his horn and making gestures at Beard, who apparently offended him in traffic. Dumb? Absolutely. The smart thing, though, is to just to smile and go on about your business, no matter how hard that can be sometimes. Terroristic? Not a chance in hell. If shaking your fist at another driver is "terroristic", then half of the population is guilty.

Keep in mind when reviewing the number of charges Treptow was hit with that prosecutors often "overcharge" cases, in an attempt to wring a plea bargain from someone with the threat of decades of prison time in front of them. Grand juries are additionally notorious for going along with pretty much whatever the prosecutor wants them to do. What's the old line about "A prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich"?

However, in an apparent change of pace to that rule, and to the evident surprise of legal experts watching the proceedings, the grand jury declined to indict Treptow on the most serious of the charges that the Anoka County Attorney was seeking, that of Aggravated Assault. In addition, the judge in the case released Treptow on his own recognizance, with not one penny of bail. These circumstances that are quite favorable to Treptow also have to be taken into consideration when weighing the amount and seriousness of the charges in the case.

Reading the Star Tribune piece further, we glean a couple of other interesting nuggets of information:

"An Anoka County grand jury heard evidence in the case for two days last week; its decisions were sealed until this week. Treptow voluntarily testified before the grand jury and answered a prosecutor's questions, said Glaser [Treptow's lawyer].

I have it on good authority that while Treptow was cooperative and responsive to the grand jury and the prosecutor, Beard on the other hand merely submitted a written statement, and did not appear personally to answer questions. Now, that is Beard's right, and the grand jurors are not allowed to make inferences from his doing so. I, however, am not one of the jurors, so I am free to make inferences all day long if I wish, and boy, do I wish.

Let's see: We have one man who willingly shows up and tells his story, a story that has not changed one bit since the day of the incident, even though Treptow must have been under extreme fear and stress on the day in question, and we have another man who declines to show up to tell his own version of what happened to the people who have the power to charge him with crimes. Which person seems to be the most confident and sure of their actions that day? One would have to say Treptow, without a doubt. His wife also appeared before the grand jury:

"Rebecca Treptow, who also testified before the grand jury, appeared at Wednesday's hearing but had no comment afterward."

That is a powerful gesture, and an admirable one, in my view. Does anyone still think that this couple has anything to hide or be ashamed of? The Treptows sure are letting it all hang out, and they seem to be absolutely convinced on Martin's innocence. I don't think that a guilty party would give anwhere near this level of cooperation. Mr. Beard? Response? Hello? Yep, just what I thought.

Finally, there's this paragraph near the end of the article:

"Judge Michael Roith released Treptow on his own recognizance after a brief court appearance Wednesday. Release conditions include no contact with Beard and a requirement that he turn over any firearms to police."

We'll be watching tomorrow's court developments to see if Landen Beard gets the same sort of charges or release conditions that Treptow did. We're not going to Vegas with the odds we're giving, sadly.

I do not know, nor have I ever met, Martin and Rebecca Treptow. I am fully convinced, however, that they are victims three times over in this case: Victims of a violent, out-of-control man, victims of a justice system that is covering up the actions of that same man, and victims of a television station that is slanting their coverage of this case because that man is married to one of their employees.

Here's something that you can do, if you agree with myself and others that the Treptows are being royally screwed by all involved:

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

Given the many foes that they're fighting, they'll need all the help they can get.


Update: I edited the "Drive-By Shooting" analysis to better reflect the fact that Rebecca Treptow did in fact call 911 immediately after the incident, even before they arrived at the gas station, as is proved by the 911 transcripts:


1st Call Received at 14:36:37
911 - Police and Fire.
Female Caller - I need, I need a, I need a, on Highway 10.
Male Caller in background - No we’re not.
Female Caller - Oh, oh, we’re.
911 - Highway, Highway 10 and what?
Female Caller - We’re cross, we’re on the bridge crossing Highway 10.911 - Highway 10 and what?Female Caller - Foley Boulevard. Some ######### just pulled a gun on us and my hus.
911 - Okay, Highway 10 and Foley Boulevard?
Female Caller - Oh, oh, where are we?
911 - Ma’am, ma’am, can you hear me?
Female Caller - First and Foley Boulevard.
911 - Okay Highway 10 and Foley Boulevard.
Female Caller - Yes, I, I , I think #### might be behind us. #### pulled a gun on us.
911 - Okay, where is #### now?
Female Caller - (inaudible) shot at #### in self defense. I can’t hear out of my right ear.
911 - Okay, #### shot you or no?
Female Caller - I just can’t hear out of my right ear. We’ve got kids in the car. I got a five month old and a, a six year old. Oh, I can’t hear!
Male Caller in background - Tori, it’s okay honey.
Female Caller - Oh my god!
911 - Ma’am, were you shot?
Female Caller - No. I don’t think so, no but I can’t hear out of my ear!
911 - Okay, was someone else shot?
Female Caller - I don’t know. We drove away, because #### starting coming.
911 - Okay, where, where are you now?
Female Caller - I can’t talk.
911 - Can you put someone else on the phone?
Male Caller - Pardon me?
911 - Can you hear me sir?
Male Caller - Yes.
911 - Where are you now?
Male Caller - I’m at the Holiday Gas Station off of Foley and 101st.