 |
| Daniel Weinzetl photo from City Pages item |
Perhaps more on that, in an UPDATE.
________UPDATE________
Okay, a bit of time for this, to flesh out some thoughts. I have to presume Daudt, in Isanti County looking for a fellow-traveler to Montana to be a driver for a Montana-used 1966 Ford Bronco Daudt was buying online, picked either a friend, a distant or close relative, or somebody out of work who could take time to travel to Montana for Daudt's September efforts, which only surface now because for some reason Daudt did not regard it as newsworthy back when it happened; while, for some reason, Stanley Hubbard's news empire earlier this month decided to publish the story, this link, while curiously not naming the arrested gun-wielding perp., with this lame "rationale" given:
EDITOR'S NOTE: KSTP decided to redact the name of the individual charged in this case, because we would not normally cover a story like this, if it did not include a public official such as the House Minority Leader. Our coverage focuses on the behavior of the elected official in this story. The person charged, in this case, is not a public official, or a public person. The crime he is accused of did not physically injure anyone and did not result in any shots fired.
Way to go Stanley. It's not news, the dude's ID, is it?
As a start, with Daudt unmarried, set aside any Brokebake Bronco speculations for these road cowboys. Take it as an employment, Daudt can explain, or an act of friendship, for the Bronco driver to ride with Daudt in Daudt's Lexus, from Minnesota to Montana, for the task at hand. With time during that drive to discuss this and that, and for the designated driver to learn Daudt keeps a handgun in his Lexus; or that was already known from prior business between Daudt and his designated driver. Daudt can explain. At any rate, two driving to Montana with a handgun both know of in the auto, the handgun belonging to Daudt.
PiPress explains,
A spokeswoman for Daudt said he gave an interview about the incident Thursday to KSTP-TV and would not be talking about it further Friday.
Again, way to go, Stanley. Get there first, with as favorable coverage as circumstances permitted. Defuse as feasible this embarrassment to a fellow Republican. Drop the story, and others can be told, Stanley's already got The Version.
City Pages names the individual Montana authorities charged with a felony, threatening a family with a handgun - with Daudt's handgun kept by Daudt in Daudt's Lexus, that fact known to the perp in advance of the Bronco encounter - and City Pages publishes Daudt's office's press release, stating in relevant part:
In early September, I traveled to Montana to purchase an antique vehicle which is something I have done before because I collect and restore antique vehicles for a hobby. Unfortunately, the seller did not accurately represent the condition and mileage of the vehicle. A confrontation ensued between my friend who traveled with me to Montana to assist in bringing the truck back to Minnesota and the seller who had misled us.
While we worked to resolve the situation, the seller became verbally aggressive with both my friend and me and became physically aggressive with my friend. I did everything I could to calm down the seller, diffuse the situation and get my friend and me out of harm's way. However, feeling imminently threatened, my friend retrieved a handgun, without my knowledge, from my vehicle. The gun is licensed to and owned by me. The gun was not discharged during the incident.
Police were called and my friend was detained and charged by local authorities.
So, Daudt's version, "the seller became verbally aggressive with both my friend and me and became physically aggressive with my friend." Not the other way around, Kurt, or it's what you say is so. The friend's ID, being irrelevant in the explanation. And who, again, was it who called police and was reported, under oath, to have appeared to law enforcement as distraught? Oh, right that aggressive bully guy, there with wife and children to watch.
PiPress links to the affidavit, online here. Naming names. Unredacted. Stating early on a 911 call was received, "A female caller was hysterical, someone had pointed a gun at her family."
The affidavit PiPress posted goes on to say,
The driver was identified as Brock Roy and his wife was identified as Kim Roy. Officer Emanuel notified dispatch the caller was located. Kim was visibly shaken and upset. According to Brock, an unknown male had pointed a gun at them and their children and had then taken off. [...] Officer Emanuel spoke briefly with Brock who reported the following: He had sold the Bronco to a male from Minnesota. The male came today to complete the transaction and take possession of thevehicle. At some point during the transaction, the male confronted Brock about the way the vehicle drove. Brock advised the male that the sale was final which subsequently resulted in a verbal altercation. The altercation rose to a point where a friend of the male retrieved a black handgun and pointed the gun at the entire family, including the children. Fearful for the safety of his family, Brock accelerated away from the situation in his vehicle, leaving the two maies behind.
Not exactly the same version as Daudt's office's press release - all guilt on the Montana side, me and Dan worried, "feeling imminently threatened, my friend retrieved a handgun, without my knowledge, from my vehicle," leaving hanging such facts as how did Weinzetl know Daudt's firearm was in Daudt's Lexus and where to find it there, and what Weinzetl did after returning with Daudt's weapon in hand. Minor detail? However, the affidavit's "... pointed a gun at them and their children and had then taken off" is inconsistent with "... Brock accelerated away from the situation ... leaving the two mailes behind."
Devil in details. I was not there, and do not know who drove first from the confrontation scene. Somehow, I believe the prosecutor's version, despite the inconsistency.
That affidavit was a sworn statement, not a press release, and was dated 20 Sept 2013, when memories were fresh: and not concocted months later when memory can fade; and it stands without any apparent motive to falsify.
Some online court docket information, as basis for the joking earlier statement that Daudt must have taught the perp. how to drive. Daudt first, then Weinzetl:
They do drive showing equal regard for traffic safety law, that is hard to deny given the citation history of both Daudt and his designated driver, Weinzetl who was chosen by Daudt to safely drive the Bronco from Montana back to Minnesota.
Most troubling, Weinzetl's item 30-CR-10-139, from March 2010, listed above as still "Under Court Jurisdiction."
Here is the beginning portion from the online case docket for that event/disposition (leaving off the court papers filing history and the info on the collection agency's attaining periodic payments, etc.):
Assault on a responding police officer, a conviction, a gross misdemeanor not a felony, so Weinzetl was not a felon in possession of a handgun, but still ...
That case indicates Isanti County Public Defender and Prosecutor worked the case, and the disposition section of the thing is what's scary. They cut some slack, but look at terms of Weinzetl's conditional probation: cognitive skill training, chemical assessments, counseling, hands off drugs and booze, stay out of bars and liquor stores, no assault or disorderly conduct, remain law-abiding for duration of probation, 01/19/2011 - 01/19/2013; yet, within half a year after probation ended he pulls a gun on a Montana family in the presence of a Minnesota Republican legislator? The legislator's firearm no less.
Daudt's got further 'splaining to do on this hummer.
That kind of a person with Daudt, knowing where Daudt kept a handgun in Daudt's automobile, trusted that way by Daudt - is not the levelheadedness and sagacity one expects of a party's legislative leadership. It's bozo behavior, leaving someone like that loose around a firearm; a person with a history of a conviction of assaulting a police officer.
What was Daudt thinking? He thought he could keep this under wraps; and what was Stanley Hubbard's people thinking trying to sell the story that the perpetrator's identity was inconsequential and subject to nondisclosure.
Hubbard's folks clearly paint a misleading picture, that way.