Pardon Me While I Swear

by Joel Rosenberg
3-Sep-2003

Idiocy in Action

There's an old saying, that I usually attribute to David Dyer-Bennet, although it may not be original with him: "You can't make anything idiot-proof, because idiots are far too resourceful."

Yeah.

It had to happen, eventually, I guess. Wouldn't have bothered me if it hadn't, though.

As you may have heard, we've finally had a permit holder, who had had his permit for a grand total of eight days, lose it.

And he deserved to. Let's take a look at the whole story, from KSTP.

First crime committed under state's new handgun law
Updated: 09-03-2003 11:41:40 PM

He had a permit to legally carry a handgun for eight days, before committing a crime.  Now, he's the first Minnesotan to have his handgun permit suspended under the state's new gun law.

When the new handgun permit law was debated here at the capitol opponents feared it would turn Minnesota into the "wild west."  That has not happened, but one Minnesota man does have the dubious distinction of being the first to lose his right-to-carry for committing a felony with his handgun.

These tire skid marks mark the end of his right to carry a handgun in public...at least for now.

Forever, actually—under the MPPA, he'll lose not only his carry permit, but his right to own, or even possess, firearms, forever.

Damian Petersen: "I probably jumped the gun a little bit."

Actually, you moron, you did a lot worse than that. Buy a clue.

34-year old Damian Petersen recently pleaded guilty to "reckless discharge of a firearm."

On the afternoon of July 5th, Petersen was in his driveway when he got into an argument with his 36-year old brother.

According to the criminal complaint, Petersen's brother began ramming his car into a retaining wall and the side of his house.

And I thought my family-of-origin was dysfunctional...

When he wouldn't stop, Damian Petersen "emptied the entire magazine" of a semi-automatic handgun into the car's engine, in an attempt to "kill the motor."

Damian Petersen: "Some things happen without you thinking too much."

When police pulled his brother's car over on this Anoka county road minutes later, steam was pouring out of "eleven" bullet holes in the hood.

Hauser: "You think you should still be legally entitled to carry a weapon out in public?"

Petersen: "Yes, because I was protecting my property." Petersen also admits to firing at least one shot at his brother's car as he drove away.

Now, let me get this straight: he's already emptied one magazine into the car, and he reloads, and then shoots again at the fleeing car? Idiots are resourceful, granted, but...sheesh.

He says he feels bad because the incident upset his neighbors, many with kids who often play nearby.

Damian Petersen: "As anybody in the neighborhood, you don't want to hear gunshots or incidents like this going off.  I wouldn't."

Ya think?

It's important to emphasize Petersen committed his handgun crime on his own property where he didn't need a handgun permit.  However, it happened just weeks after he completed gun safety training and just days after getting his permit to carry. Because he pleaded guilty to a felony, his permit is the first to be suspended under the new law.

Sigh.

There's a fair amount to quibble with in the article. No, this wasn't the first crime committed under the new law; it was the first crime committed by a permit holder since the new law passed. It doesn't have a whole lot to do with the permit; as the article emphasizes, this moron commited his crime on his own property, where his permit was irrelevant.

Not that the antis will ever admit that.

I don't know who he took his training with, and probably don't want to.

Post Mortem

Thankfully, "post mortem" is a figure of speech; nobody was hurt, much less killed. It's still pretty bad.

Let's review the things that he did wrong:

Using lethal force in defense of property. A definite no-no. In my classes, I emphasize that you can never use or threaten lethal force to protect property. Even under "defense of dwelling", which allows you to use lethal force to prevent the commission of a felony within your home, you've still got to be able to persuade the jury that your choice to do that was "reasonable", and I spend a lot of time frightening my students over the very real possibility that a jury might not agree with you that you made a "reasonable" choice—even if you did. Which he didn't.

Firing at a retreating car. He admits firing "at least one shot" at the car as it drove away. What was he thinking? Argh. Once an attacker—and this attacker, his brother (one heck of a family, eh?), was attacking property, not Peterson—breaks off the attack and attempts to flee, the only sensible thing to do is let him. Police have, at best, very limited rights to use lethal force to prevent a perpetrator from escaping; civilians don't have any such rights. It's also incredibly stupid. It was unlikely that a bullet, fired at the retreating car, could have hit somebody at all, much less somebody not involved—but it could have happened.

Justifying the unjustifiable. What a moron. "Yes, because I was protecting my property." Property is insurable, and replaceable; even an idiot brother isn't replaceable. Thankfully, nobody was hurt by Peterson's idiocy.

Idiocy Aside

Still, as the article notes, his permit was irrelevant. He could have carried his handgun on his own property without a permit. What they don't mention is that he'll no longer be able to do that—his felony conviction will lose him his right to so much as possess a firearm, at home or anywhere else, for at least ten years from the end of his sentence.

And, still, we've had literally tens of thousands of permit holders under the old law, and somewhere upwards of 20,000 permit holders under the new law. We've already had at least one permit holder using his gun—without firing it—to prevent a carjacking.

But this is pretty bad, and while it's being made to look worse than it actually is, there's nothing defensible about it.

Changing the Subject

Still, it's clear that Minnesotans with carry permits—even irresponsible ones, like this Peterson clown—are statistically less of a danger to society than Million Mom March organizers. We have around 20,000 permit holders, of which one has done something almost preposterously stupid.

On the other hand, the Million Mommers have Barbara Graham—see this— a Million Mommer who, in retribution for her son having been murdered, shot and paralyzed an innocent man.

Update—9/5/2003

Unsurprisingly, both the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press have picked up the story.

A few more details in those, although, frankly, they make me even angrier. The Pioneer Press gives this, from the police report:

After the argument, Damian Petersen of Oak Grove heard tires squealing and a loud bang in his driveway. Devin, 36, had backed his 1989 Mercury Cougar over a retaining wall and the car was stuck. Devin kept trying to free the car, but it was tearing up Damian's lawn and later rammed his house.

So far, so good. Kinda. Damian yelled at Devin, who got out of the car and threw several punches at him, but missed. Devin sounds like a real, treat, eh? Damian went in his house and retrieved his loaded 10-millimeter semi-automatic pistol. Not exactly a bright thing to do. But it's worth noting, again, that he wasn't even carrying his gun, much less carrying it on his permit—he had went back into the house to retrieve his gun. Outside, Devin was spinning the tires of the car, which was still stuck. Damian told police he emptied the entire magazine of the gun into the engine compartment "in an attempt to kill the motor." Sheesh. Then Damian got another clip of ammunition. Devin freed his car and drove around the house. Damian reloaded and tried to shoot out a tire as Devin left. He continued shooting, trying to disable the car and protect his house. Let me understand this: his drunken brother is leaving, and instead of calling the cops again, he tries to shoot out a tire to "protect his house" from a car that's driving away? Damian said he had called but was frustrated because they hadn't arrived.

"It shouldn't have happened but it did," he said. "He was ruining my property, and he wouldn't stop. The only thing I could do, I thought, was get my gun and shut his car down."

A police officer spotted Devin's car after a call had been dispatched with a description of the car. Steam was pouring out of 11 holes, in an 18-inch pattern, on the car's hood.

Damian Petersen, who said he owns a construction business, appears to have had one Minnesota conviction—driving while intoxicated in 1999. He said he should still be legally entitled to carry a concealed weapon in public because he was protecting his property.

Petersen's attorney, Joe Kaminsky, said his client is a "hard-working, good guy."

"He has a completely clear record (of violent crimes) and it was a very unfortunate thing," Kaminsky said.

Rebecca Thoman, executive director of Citizens for a Safer Minnesota, said the case shows why her group opposed the law.

"This is an obvious case of a man turning to a gun in the heat of the moment," she said. Yup. "It also goes to the poor training that this law requires." Well, no. I'm in no way, form or manner justifying this idiot's idiocy, but it's not a matter of training; it's a matter of idiocy. You'll note that Rebecca doesn't even admit that this has nothing to do with the idiot's carry permit—this occured at his home, where he didn't need a permit. Hell, he wasn't even carrying his gun at the time—he went back into the house to get it.

Is Rebecca claiming that there was some magical spell on his plastic permit card that made him go back into his house, get his gun, and come back out to do something stupid?

Still, a stopped clock is right twice a day: "It's not appropriate to use a gun to protect property. It wasn't a situation of his life being threatened."

However, Joseph Olson, president of the Minnesota-based Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, said, "No one ever claimed permit holders would be perfect." Information from other states shows that permit holders are more law-abiding than the population in general, Olson said.

"But there are always exceptions, and this gentleman is a moron," he said. "There will be people who will do stupid and illegal things and the law is set up so they lose their permits, which sounds like it worked just fine in this case." Yup; Joe's got it right.

Good Lawyering; Bad Result

It turns out that he's only going to lose his permit—from the Star Tribune:

Damian Petersen, a construction contractor, pleaded guilty last month in Anoka County District Court to reckless discharge of a firearm under a plea agreement. If he maintains a clean record, pays a $250 fine, does 40 hours of community service and meets other conditions for two years, the felony will be expunged from his record.

The sheriff can, of course, use this incident as evidence of a "substantial likelhood" that Peterson would be dangerous to self or others. But he will, if he follows the conditions, not lose his right to keep and bear arms for more than the two years. Sounds to me, given the circumstances, like he had a terrific lawyer.

Naturally, Rebecca Thoman and her merry band will try to use this as an argument to take away the right of all of us to keep and bear arms forever. I don't think that's going to work.

But he's still a moron.

---

Last modified Wednesday, 10-Sep-2003 06:55:33 PDT.