Recently got to see a man I’ve been out of touch with for 17 years. I first met Bryant Kolner in 1998, when he had to shoot a man. He was an off-duty policeman on his way to work when he stopped to do a good deed, and the next thing he knew a guy was trying to club him to death with a baseball bat. Bryant drew his department issue S&W .45 and spun the guy to the ground with three 230 grain Gold Dot bullets. The shooting went before a grand jury. I was contacted by deputy Kolner’s defense attorney, the very capable Fred Rench, and was allowed to address that grand jury by a fair-minded district attorney, Jim Murphy. The outcome was that the grand jury cleared the officer, and indicted his attacker for felonious assault, to which he pled guilty. An account of the shooting and its aftermath later appeared in the Ayoob Files section at American Handgunner magazine.
Time went on. Bryant changed departments. He led his agency in number of arrests. The time came when, running up an icy driveway to the aid of a battered woman, his feet went out from under him and he suffered a severe line-of-duty injury later exacerbated by medical malpractice. In the end, he wound up having to leave the job he loved, based on the physical disability.
But, you can’t keep a good man down. Today his job is representing the interests of retired safety personnel. Working for the benefit of good people is just part of some folks’ nature.
It’s good to be able to touch the lives of people like Bryant Kolner.
Thanks, Mas, for a great story to get my mind right as I head into another work week. It is so good to hear about a good guy doing the right thing – and realizing the correct outcome. I am so sorry Mr. Kolner has had the tremendous physical setbacks, but as you pointed out, a guy like this will not be denied.
May all of us learn from his great example and do our best to emulate it.
It’s always heartwarming to know that so many people out there are good guys trying to protect others. Thank you for highlighting a good guy.
Rich
Mr. Kolner may very well not have been able to continue his life of service had you you not provided him with yours – one man coming to the aid of another that he in turn may come to the aid so many more. Kudos to you both.
Thanks for sharing Mas.
What a story! Perfect proof that no good deed goes unpunished, and that crazy can happen anytime, anywhere. I blame the late Alfred Hitchcock for popularizing the baseball bat as an assault weapon in one of his more unforgettable TV shows. Thank you, Bryant Kolner.
Thank you for sharing that story Mas. Glad that justice was done, and that it was seen to be done in Officer (now Mister) Kolner’s case.
I find a certian oddness in the fact he survived a brutal assualt with a baseball bat and returned to duty afterwards for many years, but falling over on an icy path – which could happen to anyone – sees him being medically retired.
One feels there ought to be a lesson in there somewhere, but perhaps there isn’t.
Maybe the lesson is: danger is wherever you find it.
Mas, is that a smile or grimace. Judging by the size of Mr. Kolner’s hand, if he squeezed it would be a long time before you could do a tactical reload.
Mas, How would you make a defense for an officer defending himself with one, or more, of these M1911 type Pistols, after a shooting instance, assuming the Agency allowed them on, or off, duty?
For the Shooter “Who Has EVERYTHING”, A Double Barreled M1911 (Check out the twin, single stacked, mated magazines it uses), in either .45 ACP, or .38 Super!
The Factory Website tells a lot about them, even a firing Video with one of them being slow fired, but go to Jerry Miculek’s Facebook webpage, and watch him accurately fire TWO TO THESE MONSTERS AT THE SAME TIME, IN A LITTLE OVER A SECOND!
Jerry Miculek Firing two af-2011-a1-double-barrel pistols, at the same time, in about 1.xx Seconds
https://www.facebook.com/267788486618080/photos/pb.267788486618080.-2207520000.1433799366./912973925432863/?type=1&theater
Factory Home page
http://www.arsenalfirearms.com/products/af-2011-a1-double-barrel-pistol
See holsters, and magazines, for these weapons here too.
Factory Video
http://www.arsenalfirearms.com/products/af-2011-a1-double-barrel-pistol#
Serendipity in everyday life: Yesterday, just by chance, I picked a random Handgunner out of the stack and read the Kolner Ayoob File.
Randy — Bryant is indeed a bear. I’m glad he’s on our side!
Paul — I haven’t had a problem defending anyone who used a 1911 with a proper trigger pull, and there are probably more cops carrying them on the street today than ever. It’s optional on my department, and what I’ve qualified with there for the last couple of years, and what I’m carrying at the moment in fact. And, yes, Jerry Miculek is awesome.
tc – Good point, or perhaps it’s: Danger is wherever it finds you.
Hmmm . . . I do know of two individuals, one of whom deployed to Basrah – as reservist and in a role which kept him well withing the wire – for a short deployment and came back without a scratch. Meanwhile a colleague of his went out playing golf, fell over, landed badly, wrecked his knees and came close to a medical retirement.
Off-topic:
There’s an interesting thing happening in regard to Second Amendment law, most recently illustrated by the Supreme Court’s decision this week in which the Court declined to hear the appeal of Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, in which the lower courts upheld, against a Second Amendment challenge, San Francisco’s law that requires guns kept at home to be kept in a locked container or have a locked trigger lock in place.
Most of what I’m about to say next comes from this American Bar Association paper:
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/abanews/GunViolenceWhitePaper_020615.pdf
There have been more than 900 decisions since Heller challenging various firearm regulations and in all but a _tiny_ number, the courts have upheld the regulations. The paper says that the kinds of regulations which have been upheld include:
“• Possession of Firearms by Criminals
o Prohibiting possession of firearms by felons
o Prohibiting possession of firearms by domestic violence misdemeanants
o Prohibiting possession of firearms by an individual who is under indictment for a felony
o Prohibiting possession of firearms during the commission of a crime
• Firearm Ownership
o Requiring background checks for private firearm transfers
o Requiring registration of all firearms
o Requiring an individual to possess a license to own a handgun
o Requiring handgun permit applicants to pay a $ 340 fee every three years
o Prohibiting the sale of firearms to individuals who do not reside in any U.S. state
• Possession of Firearms in Public
o Requiring an applicant for a license to carry a concealed weapon to show “good cause,” “proper cause,” or “need,” or to otherwise qualify as a “suitable person”
o Requiring an applicant to submit affidavits evidencing good character
o Prohibiting the issuance of a concealed carry permit based on a misdemeanor assault conviction
o Requiring an applicant to be a state resident
o Requiring an applicant for a concealed carry license to be at least twenty-one years old
o Allowing the revocation of the permit if law enforcement determines that the permit holder poses a material likelihood of harm
• Firearm Safety
o Requiring the safe storage of handguns in the home
o Prohibiting the possession of a firearm while intoxicated
• Particularly Dangerous Weapons
o Forbidding the possession, sale, and manufacture of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines
o Prohibiting the sale of “particularly dangerous ammunition” that has no sporting purpose
• Firearm Possession By Other Dangerous Individuals
o Prohibiting the possession of firearms by individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution
o Prohibiting possession of firearms by an unlawful user of a controlled substance
o Prohibiting possession of firearms by individuals subject to a domestic violence restraining order
o Authorizing the seizure of firearms in cases of domestic violence
• Conditions on the Sale of Firearms
o Requiring a gun dealer to obtain a permit and operate its business greater than 500 feet from any residential area, school, or liquor store
o Prohibiting the sale of firearms and ammunition to individuals younger than twenty-one years old
• Firearms in Sensitive Places
o Prohibiting the possession of firearms within college campus facilities and at campus events
o Prohibiting the carrying of a loaded and accessible firearm in a motor vehicle
o Forbidding possession of a firearm in national parks
o Prohibiting the possession of firearms in places of worship
o Prohibiting the possession of firearms in common areas of public housing units
o Prohibiting the possession of guns on county-owned property
• Regulation of Firing Ranges
o Requiring firing range patrons to be at least 18 years of age
o Requiring that ranges not be located within 500 feet of sensitive locations
o Construction requirements, including bullet-proof wind8ows and doors, noise limits, plumbing and electrical requirements. and separate/interlocked ventilation systems
o Requiring that a range master be present at all times”
(Citations omitted, see original paper for citations.)
Of those 900 or so cases about 60 have made their way to the Supreme Court and — here’s the interesting part — the Supreme Court has refused to hear any of them since McDonald, even those which would appear to possibly contradict what was done in Heller and McDonald (which were, from a lawyer’s point of view, anything but crystal-clear).
At least two cases which the Supreme Court has declined to hear have held that there is no Second Amendment right to possess firearms outside the home. If you add that to the San Francisco requirement that arms kept at home have to be securely locked away, then the Second Amendment right to possession of firearms for self-protection seems very limited indeed.
Ascribing an ideology or reason for the Supreme Court to deny accepting cases is worse than a crap shoot. All that can really be said is that at least 6 justices have each of these 60 times not wanted to hear the case (it takes the vote of 4 justices to accept a case) and, of course, the composition of those 6 can change from case to case. But this is looking odd and has been commented on several months back in the conservative American Spectator:
http://spectator.org/articles/59552/our-gun-shy-justices
(By the way, Peruta v. County of San Diego, mentioned in that article and in the ABA paper, which upheld a 2nd Amendment right to bear firearms outside the home has, since that writing, been accepted for rehearing by the full Ninth Circuit, a sign that often presages the three-judge panel of that court, which upheld that alleged right, being reversed.)
Heller can be read to say that the Second Amendment right it announced is very limited and is subject to strong regulation. If the Supreme Court continues to deny hearing regulation cases, it would appear that will be true de facto if not clearly de jure that the Supremes will be willing to put up with just about any kind of regulation except for absolute prohibition, and in light of what they’ve done so far one has to begin to wonder, with the caveats noted above, if that’s not exactly the message they’re trying to send. (One corollary of which is that, _if_ that is correct, the notion of “Constitutional carry” is nonsense. “Constitutional kept locked away in a gun safe in your home” may have some validity, but carry? Not so much.)
Massad…For 17 years I have wanted to thank you personally for testifying at my Grand Jury Hearing. Then late last week, I was at Zack Sports, my local gun dealer who is located in Round Lake, NY, just a few blocks from where I had to shoot the crazed psycho wielding a Louisville slugger baseball bat, to save my life on March 18, 1998 at 11:32 am. As you know, I put my left arm up to slow down the incoming bat strike and subsequently the bat broke when it hit my left wrist. The rest was history when I shouted I to him …”Stop, I’m a Police Officer” multiple times as he continued to take a second strike with the jagged baseball bat. This is when I effectively went into my extensive training mode, drew my S & W 4526 .45 cal. duty weapon, while focused on the incoming bat, did a reverse body armor drill…one to the head, two to the center mass stopping the felony assault. My first round which was intended to hit his right cheekbone as he had the bat overhead, was stopped by his right thumb and deflected into his double denim jackets ultimately not stopping his attack,until I did the double tap to his upper body mass and he fell backwards to the ground. I handcuffed him and he blurted out ‘ I got the wrong guy”.
So while at Zack Sports last week they told me how Mas was holding a 4 day training seminar just up the road in Saratoga Springs, NY. I reached out to Mas via e-mail and we re-connected, much to my delight. On Saturday night, June 6th, after 17 long years, I finally got to thank Mas in person for his awesome experience and testimony on my behalf before the Saratoga County Grand Jury. I was only able to see Mas once at the crime scene to brief him on what took place and then I was isolated from him as he was an “Expert Witness” in my Grand Jury proceeding. Being able to shake hands and hug Mas as I thanked him was a pivotal moment in my life and career as a police officer. It was nothing short of epic and I’m still emotional over that experience of being able to sit down with Mas and talk about my shooting while expressing my appreciation to him. Mas is the absolute finest “expert” to have on your side and the “Thin Blue Line” is honored to have him be one of us and be there for us. Thank you from the bottom of my heart Mas and I’m so glad I didn’t hurt your shooting hand with my ” bear paw” handshake in the photo 🙂 Your brother for life…Bryant
Bryant, it meant a lot to me, too!
Dave, I’m as concerned about that as you are.
@ Dave (the Liberal, non-Uncle one) Says:
“…..in which the lower courts upheld, against a Second Amendment challenge, San Francisco’s law that requires guns kept at home to be kept in a locked container or have a locked trigger lock in place.”
You left out the part of the San Francisco law that in addition to the locked container, or locked trigger lock in place, that the firearm may be carried on the person.
@Hanza: None of the reports about Jackson vs SF which I saw mentioned that and I missed it, but you are correct. It does, however, explain a comment in one report that I presumed was just a silly off-comment, but now seems both relevant and apropos: The commenter said something about the ruling not leaving any practical ability of self-defense because it’s not generally feasible to carry your weapon 24-7, such as while in bed.
I’d note that this same case also upheld San Francisco’s prohibition on the sale of hollow point ammunition.
Dave (the Liberal, non-Uncle one),
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Sounds like the San Francisco Court, and even the Supreme Court, are trying to limit the Second Amendment as much as possible. Gun owners in NY, NJ, MA, IL, MD, CA and HI are very familiar with laws like this. Basically, they allow you to own a gun, but only transport it and fire it at the range.
We all know the Second Amendment states that we get to “….keep and bear arms….” Keeping arms means owning them, and bearing arms means carrying them. Of course lawyers have to make simple laws complicated.
Since anti-Second Amendment judges are in power, they will not listen to Chief Justice John Marshall’s argument that unconstitutional laws are null and void. They will highlight arguments where states get to modify federal laws like the Second Amendment.
I think the answer is civil disobedience. A bumper sticker might say “Do what’s right, not what’s legal.” Of course, this type of action could get me in trouble.
Some examples of civil disobedience could be the Boston Tea Party and Rosa Parks. Also, fugitive slave laws were disobeyed a lot before the Civil War. Runaway slaves were supposed to be captured and returned, but often they were not. After Hitler’s army conquered France, he ordered Field Marshall Rommel to kill all the Jews. Rommel disobeyed Hitler’s direct order, and got away with it! That’s why Rommel is the only leader from the Nazi era who is still respected in Germany today.
If you think about it, there is so much diversity in America, we really can’t exist under the same laws. I’m talking about the fact that the Left and the Right have totally different ideas of what should be legal and what should be illegal. We really have no business trying to live under the same laws. Divisive issues should be left up to the states if we want to preserve the union. The federal government tries to impose one-size-fits-all laws, and it is tearing us apart.
As for wearing a weapon in bed, I tried sleeping with a belly band on one night and found it to be very comfortable. That’s how I would sleep if I was in a war zone, and the weapon goes with me on bathroom breaks.
So the big question to me, Mas, is whether LEOs stand a better chance, statistically speaking, of getting a no-true bill in a righteous shoot than John Q. Public. Does data exist to back the answer?
My off-the-cuff opinion is that cop do indeed enjoy a better chance of a grand jury viewing their actions favorably than those of us without a badge, but I know such decisions are based on tons of variables. Still, I can’t help but wonder…regardless, it’s great to see the good officer survive both the attack and the aftermath. Here’s hoping the his attacker won’t see the light of day for more years to come!
TXCOMT
No data that I know of, TXCOMT. I know there are prosecutors who give latitude to cops, but I’ve also seen prosecutors who figure their careers aren’t complete until they send a cop up the river, or who will throw one to the wolves to placate a voting bloc they hope will re-elect them.
I can definitely imagine that would be the case with some prosecutors, Mas…thanks, as always, for the insight!
TXCOMT
Mas…I forgot to write what my final statement was to the last question by a male member of the Grand Jury…”Officer Kolner would it be fair to say that you shot Brian Rice to kill him ?” I looked the man in the eyes and responded ” sir, you can put it into whatever context you like but ” I SHOT TO LIVE “. You could hear a pin drop in the Grand Jury Room and that was the end of my testifying. Subsequently, Brian Rice was indicted on Felony Assault 2nd Degree and Criminal possession of a Weapon. Brian Rice was found guilty as charged. Mas, your expert testimony, re-creating my shooting right down to making a determination that I fired 3 rounds in 3/5’s of one second and that it took the 3 rounds to stop the threat to my life, as the first round blew his thumb off and deflected into his left shoulder not stopping his second strike with the bat, was so important to make the Grand Jury understand the dynamics of a body in motion, turning as he swung the bat and my rounds spun him around to the ground. Mas, I will be forever indebted to you brother and look forward to seeing you next year… Forever Thin Blue Line…be safe my brother…Bryant
Comments are closed.