MN: Charges Dropped against Paul Jason Allen in Rochester, Self Defense Cited

Gun Watch ^ | 10 January, 2017 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Paul Jason Allen was involved in a verbal altercation on 19 May, 2017. He says three men in a truck drove past him while he was crossing a street at the intersection. They say he stood in the street and prevented them from passing, then yelled at them, including something about their mother.

All agree the truck stopped, and the three men exited the vehicle. One of the men grabbed a rake from the truck and chased Allen. Somewhere in the process, Allen produced a knife. Three to one is clear disparity of force, so Allen could be justified in producing a deadly weapon. A rake could qualify as a deadly weapon.

It may not matter if Allen stood in the crosswalk and blocked the truck, or if the truck drove past him in an unsafe manner. What matters is the three men in the truck exited the vehicle in order to escalate what had been a mere verbal altercation. Calling the three men the "victims" was premature on the part of kaaltv.com.  From kaaltv.com:  

The three victims said they were in their truck and stopped when they saw the other man crossing the street at 14th Street and 11th Ave NE. The victims said they stopped and were waiting for the man to cross when he stopped in the middle of the crosswalk and started yelling at them. He allegedly yelled "something about their mom", so the three men got out of their truck.

When they got out of the truck they say the suspect, who police have identified as 43-year-old Paul Allen, pulled a knife on them so they backed away. One of the men said he grabbed a rake out of his truck. 

Disparity of force is a concept in the law that allows use of a deadly weapon to defend against others, when the others may not have a weapon. The concept includes multiple attackers, larger, stronger, and younger assailants, and martial arts training/expertise.  Some assailants are a deadly threat because of factors other than their possession of weapons.

The County Attorney appears to understand disparity of force. An important datum is that the truck occupants escalated the situation by stopping and getting out of the truck. From kimt3.com:

Allen was accused of 2nd degree assault but that charge has been dropped. Olmsted County Attorney Mark Ostrem says Allen notified the court he was planning to claim self-defense and, after further investigation, it was decided they could not refute that claim beyond a reasonable doubt.

Words are not considered sufficient justification for the use of force, unless they are accompanied by actions that a reasonable person would perceive as a physical threat.

In this case, charges were dropped against Allen, and no charges where brought against the occupants of the truck.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

[marktwain]

Disparity of force is a well established concept in law.

[JimRed]

Two sets of @$$hole$ in unnecessary conflict.

[rjsimmon]

Words are not considered sufficient justification for the use of force, unless they are accompanied by actions that a reasonable person would perceive as a physical threat.

Then why is this not true in the case of incitement to riot?

[Bonemaker]

Antifa type street blockers need to be be found as hamburger underneath the vehicle wrapped around the axle. Don’t know what the case is here.Same stuff happens with regularity in “certain” parts of big cities.

[Bonemaker]

“Then why is this not true in the case of incitement to riot? “

Sticks and stones will break my bones and words will also hurt you.

[Dr. Sivana]

It may also be a defense if the statement about their mother was true.

[Az Joe]

Your comment makes no sense. What are you talking about?

[rjsimmon]

If an individual calling out an insult to a passing vehicle is not considered to have instigated a retaliation by those in that vehicle, how can an individual be charged with inciting a riot when they are doing basically the same thing?

[TexasGator]

“If an individual calling out an insult to a passing vehicle is not considered to have instigated a retaliation by those in that vehicle, how can an individual be charged with inciting a riot when they are doing basically the same thing?”

If you don’t know the difference, be very careful out in the real world.

[rjsimmon]

If you don’t know the difference, be very careful out in the real world.

I do know the difference. My question stems from a legal argument. I do not hold to the legal defense that an individual is exculpable due to the mob mentality rule.

[TexasGator]

If you know the difference why did you say they are the same?

[rjsimmon]

The law puts the two incidents in to separate categories. I question that logic but still make the rhetorical question as to the culpability of the pedestrian in question. Equal protection under the law should cover that but it doesn’t.

[teeman8r]

they are not the same.

if allen said, Get out of that truck and i will show you something.

then that would be inciting a riot.

[rjsimmon]

they are not the same.

That is the point I was making and showing a gap in the law. If a pedestrian can yell something to a person in an automobile and not be held responsible for any ensuing conflict, than a person on the back of a truck telling a crowd to "Burn that bitch down" cannot be held responsible for any ensuing action the crowd takes. The law, however, sees them as two distinct and different things.

[webstersII]

“no charges where brought against the occupants of the truck.”

They escalated it and picked up a deadly weapon. Why weren’t they charged?

[marktwain]

They are two different and distinct things.

They guy outside the truck is not saying “stop the truck, get out here and fight me”.

The guy saying “burn it down” is inciting arson, a felony.

The guy outside the truck is yelling insults, quite different from calling for action.

[rjsimmon]

Both are verbal and nothing more. The law says you are responsible for what you say in one instance but not another. This is legal contradiction.

[rjsimmon]

You truly have no idea how to conduct an argument, do you? Ad hominem is the mark of low intelligence.