Officer won't face criminal liability in shooting death

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Officer won't face criminal liability in shooting death

Postby Stebben84 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:29 pm

This is what drives me nuts:

jonnygothispen wrote: You have beat the crap out drunks


Really? Multiple times? Got a source for that?

jonnygothispen wrote:and one time so bad that the bartenders called 9-11


And if you read the actual report and not the journalistic hit piece, some bartenders(who were there) thought it was justified with the way the suspect was acting.

jonnygothispen wrote:And you're bigger (50 pounds) than this guy who you just overpowered despite having a gun in your hand. Now he's standing 5 to 6 feet away, hands at his side, and glances at or near an approaching squad car.


Until people stop acting like armchair cops, then this will go no where. Not like it was going anywhere to begin with.

Maggie wrote:But no, all we get is a stubborn refusal to even consider that maybe Stephen Heimsness could have handled this situation in a different and better way.


Sure he could have, and millions of people in this world could have done things differently as well. Some people seem to think that if they were in the situation, they could have acted so differently. They would have known if the guy had a gun, or wasn't on meth, or wasn't REALLY lunging for the gun. They could have used the vulcan death grip to subdue the suspect, or shot out his hands, or ran, or given him a high five for getting so hammered.

jonnygothispen wrote:It might be interesting to note that Mrs. O'Malley heard Mr. O'Malley's loud shouting "He's a neighbor!!! He's a neighbor!!!" while inside the house.


And wasn't he on the porch, much closer to where his wife was?

Bland
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1644
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Officer won't face criminal liability in shooting death

Postby Bland » Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:31 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:"He's a neighbor!!! He's a neighbor!!!"

very unclear why you continue to think this matters.

Can neighbors not be burglars?
Can neighbors not be armed and/or dangerous?
Should police responding to emergency calls just assume that anything anyone tells them is immediately true?

I don't think anyone disagrees that in retrospect, Heimsness probably need not have fired his weapon. The problem is that he wasn't making that decision in retrospect, with access to all the facts, he was making it in a split second during an intense altercation when he believed his life -and possibly others- were in danger.

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9364
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Officer won't face criminal liability in shooting death

Postby rabble » Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:37 pm

Bland wrote:
jonnygothispen wrote:"He's a neighbor!!! He's a neighbor!!!"

very unclear why you continue to think this matters.

Can neighbors not be burglars?
Can neighbors not be armed and/or dangerous?
Should police responding to emergency calls just assume that anything anyone tells them is immediately true?

I think it matters. I think that should have alerted the officers that this may not be a life or death situation and slowed them down.

There. I said it. I thought I was going to stay out of it but this kind of "What difference is yelling 'he's my neighbor' going to make' is making me very upset. A guy was screaming at a cop trying to save a guy's life and I don't think you do the officer any favors by discounting every single argument that might cast him in a bad light.

Maggie
Forum Addict
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Near East Side Madison

Re: Officer won't face criminal liability in shooting death

Postby Maggie » Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:43 pm

bcs89 wrote:
It seems that most of the more nasty posts of yours were either deleted or severely edited (including that insanely racist rant of yours late last night)...


I was never looking to have a fight with you bc89. So sure we can be friends.

Do you have me confused with somebody else? What "insanely racist rant" are you referring to? I do not believe that I have had any posts here either deleted or edited. In fact, I don't even post here that much really. And when I do post, I try not to use cuss words or to insult people personally.

bcs89 wrote:

.. My problem with your posts is simply all the unfounded accusations and hateful opinions you throw around under the protective blanket of "Grieving"...


I do not think my opinions were hateful. Some of them were angry early on. I was never grieving because I did not know Paul personally. I do live on the block where the shooting happened and know some of the people involved but they are not my friends.

I am scared of the police. That hasn't changed.

FJD
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3538
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm

Re: Officer won't face criminal liability in shooting death

Postby FJD » Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:47 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote:An excellent point. It will be interesting to see what O'Malley's statement to the police said, in comparison to what he stated in the article. Not saying he's changed his story, but our perception of events change as even a little time passes.
It might be interesting to note that Mrs. O'Malley heard Mr. O'Malley's loud shouting "He's a neighbor!!! He's a neighbor!!!" while inside the house.


No one has says that Mr. O'Malley didn't yell that. Ever play in organized sports and not notice spectators shouting at you? Officer Heimness not hearing or registering what Mr. O'Malley was shouting is hardly out of line with the situation. Even if he did hear that, given his stated perception of the situation at the time, he followed proper police procedure. The fact that O'Malley had a different perception of the situation when he spoke with Bill Lueders actually has little bearing on the case. Now if there are facts in the case (rather than eyewitness statements) that contradict what Officer Heimness stated, then those would have bearing on the case.

I would like to point out to Maggie and Jonny that both have you have repeatedly made comments such as "Based on my experience with the police" or "Cops do <something bad> a lot". Perhaps leaving aside your clear dislike of police when discussing this case might help.

Full disclosure: I've worked as an armed security officer for several years in the past, and had to go through the same basic firearms and use of force training that law enforcement in the state of Wisconsin must go through. I'm basing my judgement on that knowledge (which is admittedly somewhat dated). Key to that is understanding how law enforcement (and security professionals) are trained to react to threats of various levels with little time to second guess themselves. Based on the facts that are know about the case as well a statements made by witnesses in the media, I'd still have to say Officer Heimness reacted reasonably. Could he have done something different that would have improved the results for all involved? Of course. But we have the benefit of hindsight and infinity more time to think through the problem.

Armchair Quarterbacking isn't all bad. If we don't talk about the things that go wrong in society how will we find better ways to solve them? Personally I think safe pistol technology is a great direction to push to remove this as an issue. Bar personnel limiting access to drinks for those who are well beyond inebriated might not be a bad idea either.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 13823
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Officer won't face criminal liability in shooting death

Postby snoqueen » Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:06 pm

Look at all the people to blame for this sad event:

--The officer, for following training and procedure
--The victim, for being drunk and acting irrationally
--The victim's friends, for not intervening when he was
getting so drunk
--The male neighbor, for trying to intervene
--Someone, for leaving the key in the door
--The male neighbor's wife, for calling the police
--The police hierarchy, for having procedures and
training that led to these results
--The nation, for having so many guns in too many hands
so that cops must always suspect anyone of being armed

Who am I missing?

If it makes people feel better to apportion blame, then go ahead. In my eyes, the whole incident was nearly unavoidable given the details of the situation. If one detail changed, the result might have changed as well.

We can fruitfully spend time trying to determine which detail(s) could most easily be changed so that in future, similar situations we get a better outcome. That makes sense.

But trying to pick out one person on whom to heap blame is meaningless. Nobody wanted this to happen and blame isn't going to reverse it, nor will blame prevent it from happening next time.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Officer won't face criminal liability in shooting death

Postby Stebben84 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:25 pm

I wrote some other stuff and then read Sno's response. I think she sums it up best and I will leave it at that.

Gerth
Senior Member
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:16 am
Contact:

Re: Officer won't face criminal liability in shooting death

Postby Gerth » Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:49 pm

Snoqueen has it exactly right, there's more than enough blame to go around and no one is happy with what happened.

I wonder why didn't Orzanne (sp?) put the information from the home owner in the DA's statement last week? He lost a lot of credibility when he was filmed saying things like "I don't know if the officer even heard Mr. OMalley" and similar comments. He should have known and he should have said he knew in the statement and on camera. Doing what he did made him look like he was lying and he did Steve no favors by handling it that way.

Meade
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Officer won't face criminal liability in shooting death

Postby Meade » Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:21 pm

snoqueen wrote:Nobody wanted this to happen and blame isn't going to reverse it, nor will blame prevent it from happening next time.

But of course that doesn't stop snoqueen from blaming "the nation, for having so many guns" plus at least 7 other - in snoqueen's estimation - blameworthy entities.

What do you mean "next time"? Next time someone in Madison with a blood alcohol level of .208 percent walks into a neighbor's unlocked home at 2:30am? Next time someone reaches for a police officer's sidearm?

But maybe you didn't hear - there won't be a next time for these particular homeowners because: "I feel terrible that I called the police," [the homeowner] said. "I wouldn't call them again."

Next time perhaps the homeowner should just call snoqueen.

Bland
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1644
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Officer won't face criminal liability in shooting death

Postby Bland » Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:25 pm

Meade wrote:
snoqueen wrote:Nobody wanted this to happen and blame isn't going to reverse it, nor will blame prevent it from happening next time.

But of course that doesn't stop snoqueen from blaming "the nation, for having so many guns" plus at least 7 other - in snoqueen's estimation - blameworthy entities.

Wow. I mean, really. Wow.
Image

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9364
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Officer won't face criminal liability in shooting death

Postby rabble » Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:38 pm

If Sno said it, Meade's against it. Don't matter what it is.

Meade
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Officer won't face criminal liability in shooting death

Postby Meade » Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:44 pm

and if snoqueen can't come to the phone, maybe the homeowner can text 911Bland or rabblethefirstresponder.

grumpybear
Forum Addict
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:05 am
Location: near east side
Contact:

Re: Officer won't face criminal liability in shooting death

Postby grumpybear » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:58 pm

Do you have some kind of point, Meade? You are exactly why I am grumpy. What's your beef with Sno? Be a man! Tell us all about your grumpiness.

Meade
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Officer won't face criminal liability in shooting death

Postby Meade » Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:26 am

Correction: In a November press conference regarding the Nov. 9 fatal shooting by police of Paul Heenan, Madison Police Chief Noble Wray said police were investigating an account of the shooting in which someone attempted to inform responding officers that Heenan was a neighbor. "A statement similar to that, I have heard, is part of the investigation," Wray said Nov. 12. A story on the front page of Sunday’s State Journal incorrectly described the information police had provided on that issue.

Well imagine that. A story. Published on the front page. Incorrectly described. Information.

jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Officer won't face criminal liability in shooting death

Postby jjoyce » Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:11 am

This issue is so crystal clear for some. And the internal investigation report won't even be released for another couple hours.

These folks must be truly gifted.


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests