The Minneapolis Police Department today released a chronology of events from last week's horrible workplace shooting in the city.
And there were plenty of details to be had, including the order in which people were slain, the personnel records of Andrew Engledinger, the man who did the shooting, Mr. Engledinger's police record (several incidents in which he was a victim), and the kind of gun he used. Over the weekend, we also learned that Mr. Engledinger's family had previous sought help for his apparent mental illness.
There's a lot of personal data there. And yet, there is one piece of information that will remain a secret, according to the FAQ the police department released today:
Is this something the gun lobby got included in the bill to allow it so that the information couldn't be used in situations like this? Be curious to know...or is this a discretionary decision the Police department made?
Under the concealed carry law, only the commissioner of public safety is authorized to release the data of concealed carry weapons used in a crime, and only in a report to the Legislature once a year.
In the last report for 2011, a little over 200 crimes were committed by a person with a concealed carry permit.
Following up on Joe's astute question...of the 200 crimes, how many resulted in bodily harm or murder v. total number of crimes that resulted in bodily harm or murder?
A most interesting fact from page 255:
"Number of lawful and justifiable use of firearms by permit holders: 0"
Over 90,000 armed Minnesotans, several having used guns to commit crimes, yet none of these armed citizens have ever provided defense against the bad guys.
// Over 90,000 armed Minnesotans, several having used guns to commit crimes, yet none of these armed citizens have ever provided defense against the bad guys.
I'm not sure how good the data is there. Right off the top of my head, there's the Burnsville (I think it was Burnsville; might've been Bloomington) case in which a guy chased down the purse snatcher and killed the perp.
Bob I think that might have been Plymouth.
Regardless 'chasing' the perp was not considered lawful and justifiable.
// Regardless 'chasing' the perp was not considered lawful and justifiable.
Ah, here it is; I found it. It was Minneapolis. The only thing that would have made it unlawful and unjustifiable (in legal terms) would be criminal charges.
"While this man is to be commended for helping his fellow citizen in need, a note of caution is appropriate. We prefer that armed citizens do not chase after criminals. Too much can go wrong with deadly consequences," County Atty Mike Freeman said in ruling self defense.