Officer won't face criminal liability in shooting death

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.
bcs89
Forum Addict
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:10 pm

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

Postby bcs89 » Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:31 pm

waylan wrote:The officer didn't identify himself as a police officer. Apparently, that's acceptable for the MPD. That is very messed up. Paulie didn't know he was a potential burglar. As wasted as Paulie was, is there a chance Paulie thought the officer was someone else? How was he to know a cop would be showing up? Was he trying to save his neighbor at that point thinking the cop was a burglar?



Yes indeed - if someone wants to get so wasted they illegally enter someones home, then attack the home owner and the officer responding to a panicked mothers 911 call, well, the least we should do is try and see things from the point of view of being wasted - right?
Maybe Heenan thought the officer was a Klingon, come to spray paraquat on all the cupcakes, right? For this to happen to a kind soul trying to protect our supply of cupcakes from Klingon's is just plain evil.

bcs89
Forum Addict
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:10 pm

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

Postby bcs89 » Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:38 pm

Boyce Johnson wrote:..I have the utmost sympathy for everyone who was involved in this situation or who was close to anyone involved in it. It's horrible. There's no two ways about it.



I agree with you completely - but do not think that people now have carte blanche to spew lies and innuendos in some twisted attempt to satisfy their biased sense of outrage.

waylan
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 5:56 pm
Contact:

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

Postby waylan » Sat Jan 12, 2013 5:03 pm

bcs89 wrote:
waylan wrote:The officer didn't identify himself as a police officer. Apparently, that's acceptable for the MPD. That is very messed up. Paulie didn't know he was a potential burglar. As wasted as Paulie was, is there a chance Paulie thought the officer was someone else? How was he to know a cop would be showing up? Was he trying to save his neighbor at that point thinking the cop was a burglar?



Yes indeed - if someone wants to get so wasted they illegally enter someones home, then attack the home owner and the officer responding to a panicked mothers 911 call, well, the least we should do is try and see things from the point of view of being wasted - right?
Maybe Heenan thought the officer was a Klingon, come to spray paraquat on all the cupcakes, right? For this to happen to a kind soul trying to protect our supply of cupcakes from Klingon's is just plain evil.


I'm not here to pick fights guy. I feel terrible for the police officer. Im sure he felt his life was in danger, but i know in my heart of hearts paulie would have not tried to kill the officer. An innocent man was killed. I'm just suggesting, since the officer didnt announce himself, maybe Paulie wasn't willfully attacking a police officer. If he followed police protocol and an innocent man was killed, did he really do the right thing?

And by the way, if someone wants to get shitfaced, guess what, that's completely legal.

I'm sorry you've never heard a story about someone walking into the wrong persons house mistakenly, because I've heard at least 10 to 15 stories of it happening. This is the first one that ended in death.

waylan
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 5:56 pm
Contact:

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

Postby waylan » Sat Jan 12, 2013 5:07 pm

Boyce Johnson wrote:We'll never know. At close to .21 it's doubtful he had much of an idea what was going on. I know O'Malley said something to the effect of, "I could have called the police." I honestly don't think Paulie had the capacity to make anything of that, though.

This was a nearly unbelievable and incredibly unfortunate sequence of events and set of circumstances that led to a horrific outcome. I know you knew Paulie way better than I did, and I'm really sorry for your loss. I have the utmost sympathy for everyone who was involved in this situation or who was close to anyone involved in it. It's horrible. There's no two ways about it.


Thanks Boyce. If you had a nickel for the endless amount of circumstances, that had they not happened, this could have been avoided, you'd be a rich man. It's unfathomable.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12972
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

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

Postby snoqueen » Sat Jan 12, 2013 5:23 pm

I feel as if there are a lot of younger (20-something, maybe) people here and on the east side who are totally sincere and confused about how this went down. I understand the police department (working with former chief Couper, who is now in the ministry) has held neighborhood meetings to air all sides of this issue and promote communication. If these sessions are still going on, have you attended them? Would you attend a session in which you got to talk face to face with your neighborhood cops and police department management, and listen their side and their reasoning while they listened to yours? Could you meet as individuals and get past the abstractions of words and uniforms and rumors?

Elsewhere on the forum in a totally different topic, someone today posted a link to the Tenney-Lapham newsletter with an article by their neighborhood patrol officer. It is here:

http://www.danenet.org/tlna/web-data/ne ... 012013.pdf

If you will open that and go to page 4, you can read TLNA's officer's statement regarding her job and her responsibilities. This isn't the Wil-Mar beat, but it's right across E. Wash. Read this woman's words and, taking them as similar to what the Wil-Mar cops would say, try to put yourself in the shoes of people who work cop jobs. Can you feel despair over what happened on the Baldwin Street call while at the same time respecting the difficulty and importance of policing and the many split-second judgment calls they have to make every day and night?

Having a respected police presence is the boundary between a civil society and a civil neighborhood, and the gun-in-every-coffee-table-drawer mentality. The east side neighborhoods can't sacrifice our relationship with our city's cops over this one very difficult incident.

bcs89
Forum Addict
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:10 pm

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

Postby bcs89 » Sat Jan 12, 2013 5:53 pm

waylan wrote:
bcs89 wrote:
waylan wrote:The officer didn't identify himself as a police officer. Apparently, that's acceptable for the MPD. That is very messed up. Paulie didn't know he was a potential burglar. As wasted as Paulie was, is there a chance Paulie thought the officer was someone else? How was he to know a cop would be showing up? Was he trying to save his neighbor at that point thinking the cop was a burglar?



Yes indeed - if someone wants to get so wasted they illegally enter someones home, then attack the home owner and the officer responding to a panicked mothers 911 call, well, the least we should do is try and see things from the point of view of being wasted - right?
Maybe Heenan thought the officer was a Klingon, come to spray paraquat on all the cupcakes, right? For this to happen to a kind soul trying to protect our supply of cupcakes from Klingon's is just plain evil.


I'm not here to pick fights guy. I feel terrible for the police officer. Im sure he felt his life was in danger, but i know in my heart of hearts paulie would have not tried to kill the officer. An innocent man was killed. I'm just suggesting, since the officer didnt announce himself, maybe Paulie wasn't willfully attacking a police officer. If he followed police protocol and an innocent man was killed, did he really do the right thing?

And by the way, if someone wants to get shitfaced, guess what, that's completely legal.

I'm sorry you've never heard a story about someone walking into the wrong persons house mistakenly, because I've heard at least 10 to 15 stories of it happening. This is the first one that ended in death.


OK waylan, Let’s talk.
You say “i know in my heart of hearts paulie would have not tried to kill the officer” You know him that well – apparently well enough to predict his actions, right? Well then why did you not stop him that night? You would have known he was about to make some really bad decisions, correct? Why did you let him? Why did you not tell him drinking to the point of oblivion was not a good idea? You were aware he drank like that, right? The same questions about illegal entry of a house, attacking his neighbor, attacking the responding officer – why did you not tell him the dangers?

You keep saying “innocent man”, he certainly did not act like one that night. The home owner said he had no problem identifying the officer as such – none at all.

Now, so far as your next pearl of wisdom “And by the way, if someone wants to get shitfaced, guess what, that's completely legal.” You of course are correct – to the extent you take it. The next part of that statement should include something about retaining responsibility for your actions, right? Or do you believe being shitfaced is a valid defense? Try it sometime, “Hell yeah officer, I threw a brick through that window.. but hey, not my fault..I’m shitfaced!" Let me know how that works out for you.
So far as people going in the wrong house by mistake – yes, you are right, it happens. It also can end in tragedy – just one of the many reasons why most people try to maintain enough of their senses to avoid doing it .

The truth is, due to the amount of alcohol he chose to drink, the events that played out that night involved a Paul Heenan that you, his family, and others in his life most likely would not even have recognized.

oranger
Forum Addict
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: madison, wi
Contact:

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

Postby oranger » Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:14 pm

Walking home drunk is not illegal. However, it is legal to defend yourself and resist false arrest. There is no sobriety requirement to justifiably resist false arrest. If the officer did not identify himself as a police officer then it was false arrest. Paulie Heenan then would have been legally justified to defend himself in the same manner as though the officer were a citizen off the street. That would include reaching for the officer's weapon to disarm him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_arrest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defen ... ted_States)

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9650
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

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

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:18 pm

Wow... that's a whole lot of insensitive, accusatory crap you just spewed, bcs.

My response to those who knew Paulie and know he would never try to disarm and shoot a cop (which I have absolutely no reason to doubt) is that unfortunately, Officer Heimsness did not, and could not, have known that -- certainly not in the 15 seconds during which this awful tragedy played out.

I urge everyone to watch the press conference Boyce posted earlier -- it addresses many of the questions and concerns that have been bandied back and forth on this (and other) threads. You'll get a lot more out of it if you do so with an open mind and lack of prejudice against any of the participants.

And by the way, Boyce -- I really appreciated your Facebook comments last night and today. As you know, my girlfriend lives in that neighborhood and she was very upset by the language of that flier. There can be no serious discussion about how to make positive changes to police procedure and hopefully prevent such tragedies in the future as long as the conversation is being dominated by name-callers and fear-mongering.

waylan
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 5:56 pm
Contact:

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

Postby waylan » Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:22 pm

Had I had been there, I would have stopped him. But hindsight is 20/20, isn't it. I live in New York. I was friends with Paulie in Wisconsin, and friends with him out here. I got to Wisconsin just in time to find out that this tragedy happened. It's fine if you don't believe my comment that I know he would not have tried to kill the police officer. But I know it. I know Paulie very, very well. Even though he was drunk beyond belief, that doesn't change your inner most morals. Assault, sure. Throwing a punch, sure. I can see that as a possibility. But Paulie hated guns to his core. I think Paulie was in some kind of dream state drunk. In that state, if the officer doesn't say "police!," who knows how Paulie perceived it?

Not a moment goes by where I dont wish Paulie hadn't acted the way he did. But he just had one of those nights. The last time I saw him, he was actually taking a stab at sobriety. And since I know what's been going on his Paulie's life up to that point, I don't blame his decision to let loose that night. But that's not really anyone's business but his.

I will keep calling him innocent because he was not entering someone's house to rob them. He did not put a weapon to the police officer. If he was guilty of something it was being drunk and confused. If the policeman is permitted to have tunnel vision in this situation, who's to say Paulie didn't experience the same thing when he turns around and someone has a gun pointed at him, without the man stating he was a police officer? How can this not be disputed? Remember, everyone thought there was a possible burglary in progress except for Paulie. He was just trying to go home and go to bed.

I also don't understand why the Madison police department can't just take Officer Steve off his patrolled beat out of courtesy alone. Are there really no other jobs he can do? People are hurting because of this, why flaunt this misjudgment?

bcs89
Forum Addict
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:10 pm

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

Postby bcs89 » Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:25 pm

Thanks Wag's - interesting it took you 19 pages, many filled with a " whole lot of insensitive, accusatory crap" directed at the officer involved before you felt the need to say anything. I take it you agree with all the hateful things said about the officer then, right?

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9650
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

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

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:30 pm

bcs89 wrote:Thanks Wag's - interesting it took you 19 pages, many filled with a " whole lot of insensitive, accusatory crap" directed at the officer involved before you felt the need to say anything.
Well, I started this thread, so it certainly didn't take me 19 pages to say anything. I've mostly been staying out of this out of respect for everyone involved. Waylan is my friend and he was very close to Heenan, so I found your comments to be in particularly bad taste.
This isn't an either/or situation. You need not badmouth Heenan or his friends (particularly with such a snarky tone) if your goal is to demonstrate that Heimsness acted in good faith on what little info he had and according to his training.

bcs89 wrote:I take it you agree with all the hateful things said about the officer then, right?
Are you even capable of having an adult conversation?

bcs89
Forum Addict
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:10 pm

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

Postby bcs89 » Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:44 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
Are you even capable of having an adult conversation?[/quote]

Again, the fact you choose to direct this at me - after all of the insane thing said about the officer is interesting .

But hey - if it helps to reinforce your sense of superiority, knock yourself out Wags.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9650
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

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

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:53 pm

bcs89 wrote:Again, the fact you choose to direct this at me - after all of the insane thing said about the officer is interesting.
Did you miss where I just explained I was annoyed by your insensitivity to my friend waylan? I don't have time to respond to every anti-cop post made on the internet and as I also just said, I have purposely kept silent for the most part out of respect for those involved and affected by this tragedy. Near as I can tell, you are neither of those -- you're just a jerk who made a super-snarky post which suggested Heenan's friends were partially responsible for his death. That's really fucking low, and you deserved to be called out for it.
bcs89 wrote:But hey - if it helps to reinforce your sense of superiority, knock yourself out Wags.
So the answer to my question is no, you are not capable of having an adult conversation.

bcs89
Forum Addict
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:10 pm

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

Postby bcs89 » Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:18 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
bcs89 wrote:Again, the fact you choose to direct this at me - after all of the insane thing said about the officer is interesting.
Did you miss where I just explained I was annoyed by your insensitivity to my friend waylan? I don't have time to respond to every anti-cop post made on the internet and as I also just said, I have purposely kept silent for the most part out of respect for those involved and affected by this tragedy. Near as I can tell, you are neither of those -- you're just a jerk who made a super-snarky post which suggested Heenan's friends were partially responsible for his death. That's really fucking low, and you deserved to be called out for it.
bcs89 wrote:But hey - if it helps to reinforce your sense of superiority, knock yourself out Wags.
So the answer to my question is no, you are not capable of having an adult conversation.


The point of my post was to refute waylans statement that he "knew" what Heenan would, and would not do. If it was snarky, that is the result of listening to day after day of BS being directed at someone who did not deserve it.

Who the hell are you to tell me who I know and who I don't, you presumptuous, egotistical ass. Why the hell do you think I have posted more times here, in this thread, than I have the last four years I've been registered combined? Yes, I also have a personal connection to this event, but did not realize I was required to divulge that.
So sorry to intrude on your territory Wags.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9650
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

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

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:27 pm

bcs89 wrote:Yes, I also have a personal connection to this event
Then your insensitivity is even more baffling.

Your point could just as easily have been made without the snottiness, as I demonstrated in my initial response which got this idiotic pissing match started.

I agree that Heimsness does not deserve the nastiness that's been heaped on him. But how does that justify heaping nastiness on Heenan and his friends?


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests