Activist hat on: everybody should, at some point, get the experience of making at least one data practices request, and following through on it. It's good experience for you, and since many agencies appear to be unfamiliar with their responsibilities in responding to data practices requests, it's good training for your public servants.

...
They also promised to note on my 911 file not to respond with such urgency to similar calls involving my address.
...
.

I didn't see this point discussed. I would like to know if this is something that can be done for any permit holder who is on the correct side of the law? If not, shouldn't it be? I can't understand why a MN Permit to Carry doesn't send up a BIG RED FLAG to LEO's when they run an address, driver's license, license plate, whatever, that lets the LEO know what the deal is.

I'd be after badge numbers, and pressing charges.

Badge numbers you can get, pretty much always. Pressing charges? Not so much. That's a misnomer -- although it's often used. The putative victim doesn't press charges in a criminal matter; in Minnesota, the County Attorney's office does, for felonies, and the City Attorney's office, for misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors. If you think you've been the victim of an assault, say, or a terroristic threat, it isn't you who gets to decide if charges are filed or a grand jury is assembled. A prosecutor does. I won't say that it never happens if the putative assailant is a police officer, but it's a rare thing, and in the case of some cop drawing down on somebody while responding to a 911 call, I'm just this side of certain that it never happens, and utterly certain that it almost never happens. (Whether or not it should in a given case is another matter; that would, it seems to me, depend on the facts of the case.)

But in a situation where a cop was too simply too quick and eager to be yanking out and pointing the hardware -- and I'm not saying that this was such a case -- that just isn't going to happen.

That is valid, of course, and thank you for the clarification. I guess what I meant was, I'd be doing everything in my power to bring about some kind of justice. The results, I'll allow, would likely be nothing short of a Congratulatory celebration for the LEO involved and I'd just be out of pocket, or physically worse off in the worst scenario.

A person can still go to civil court, but then I know nothing of what potentail results would come of that, again, likely nothing. But that doesn't mean its right.

I see I have an inaccurate figure of speech to get out of my vocabulary though.

I take it there isn't an effective system of check's and balances here. As in, you could be truthfully wronged, but if the Prosecutor has a reason or motivation for not pressing charges, you are simply screwed.

At least thats what I am gathering.

Maybe if an informant calls in with "Man/Lady with a gun," the standard procedure might be to check if the guy has a permit before threatening his life.

According to the 4 rules, the officer is obviously willing to destroy his target at this point. So the LEO's are saying its a justifiable shooting, if they know a person is carrying a gun and thats all?

The presence of a holstered gun alone shouldn't trigger an officer to pull out a gun/taser. Necessary force and all that...