MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Tuesday, November 25, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 22.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

Officer won't face criminal liability in shooting death

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

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

Postby bcs89 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:43 am

Maggie wrote:bc89 and jademan7 I forgive you for the horrible obscene insults you have directed towards me. I know that it is the nature of these web forums that people feel better about themselves by diminishing others.

Still I don't understand the animosity and the unwarranted obscene insults that my opinions have caused.

I don't believe I have told any lies. I have already stated that much of what I feel is based on conjecture and my opinions based on what I learned through the media.

I have even apologized to Stephen Heimsness for anything I said that might have been out of line. I have stated more than once that I forgive Stephen Heimsness. He is a victim too. I don't think he is a murderer or a monster. I do think he has some problems, but don't we all. It's just that must of us are not police officers with a gun.

I still believe that Officer Heimsness exercised poor judgement that night that he killed Paul Heenan. I think that this shooting was not necessary and another way was possible. This is what I believe. If this makes me a horrible person then I accept that fate.

Yes, I know, I WASN'T THERE. But you know what, I wasn't at a lot places and I still have a basic idea and opinions about what happened. But I guess according to this logic, I can not have an opinion about anything that happens that I wasn't an eyewitness to. And God Forbid I should feel that a cop might have some psychological and emotional issues based upon his work history. I guess that just makes me an awful terrible person. How dare I posit such a thought because, after all, I wasn't present during any of these incidents so what do I know...

So go ahead and hurl insults my way if that makes you feel smarter and better about yourself. But you're not adding anything to this conversation that is helpful. Instead, you're just showing us how good you are at using obscene insults. You're pretty good at that, but, as far as I can tell, you're not much good at anything else.



Jason, if you are going to rewrite history by deleting posts in the middle of the night, how about deleting this crap also - so it does not appear I said more than I did.

I stand by my post btw.
bcs89
Senior Member
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:10 pm

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

Postby jjoyce » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:36 am

bcs89 wrote:Jason, if you are going to rewrite history by deleting posts in the middle of the night, how about deleting this crap also - so it does not appear I said more than I did.

I stand by my post btw.


I deleted posts that included strongly-worded insults. If you feel the need to set the record straight so that no ill will might be directed at the username bcs89, be my guest. I'm sure this all must be causing you great worry.

While we're on the subject, there seem to be a lot of people eager to say some really drastic and dramatic things in a very public space without signing their real names to any of it about an incident none of them witnessed. I don't think the discussion we've seen here is helpful, interesting, provocative or useful in any way. Many more people have opinions similar to those shared here, but have opted not to share them or share them quite so vociferously. What's gained? Definitely not any kind of enlightenment or clarity.
jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI

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

Postby bcs89 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:58 am

jjoyce wrote:
bcs89 wrote:Jason, if you are going to rewrite history by deleting posts in the middle of the night, how about deleting this crap also - so it does not appear I said more than I did.

I stand by my post btw.


I deleted posts that included strongly-worded insults. If you feel the need to set the record straight so that no ill will might be directed at the username bcs89, be my guest. I'm sure this all must be causing you great worry.

While we're on the subject, there seem to be a lot of people eager to say some really drastic and dramatic things in a very public space without signing their real names to any of it about an incident none of them witnessed. I don't think the discussion we've seen here is helpful, interesting, provocative or useful in any way. Many more people have opinions similar to those shared here, but have opted not to share them or share them quite so vociferously. What's gained? Definitely not any kind of enlightenment or clarity.





So Jason, Have you stopped beating your wife?
bcs89
Senior Member
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:10 pm

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

Postby jonnygothispen » Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:43 pm

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

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

Postby jonnygothispen » Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:51 pm

fisticuffs wrote:
... which is a "license to kill," no questions asked, despite what the situation merits.


You don't know what the situation merits. 1) you weren't there, 2) you don't have the training.
However, Mr. OMalley was there. The police lied. It doesn't take "training" to know that when someone who is "flailing and swatting," can't over power you, and isn't re-engaging, that you don't have to shoot them. And Mr. Heimness certainly isn't a stranger to physical confrontation or over-reacting. If Paulie had a history of assaulting officers, that would obviously be used against him, even if it was once or twice. Yet some hard headed people here can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact the Heimness does have that history.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

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

Postby wack wack » Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:56 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:However, Mr. OMalley was there. The police lied.


Decades of eyewitness account research suggest that Mr. O'Malley's perception and description of the incident are not entirely reflective of the reality of the situation.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3173
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

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

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:04 pm

I think Snoqueen said something similar, but it's important to remember that nobody needs to be lying for the details of their differing accounts not to match. Perception is a mental construct and memory is imperfect (and changes every single time you recall or retell a story). When you find a situation where every witness and participant completely agree on all the details, that's when it's the right time to be suspicious.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 9020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

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

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:56 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote: Perception is a mental construct and memory is imperfect (and changes every single time you recall or retell a story).


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.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2616
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

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

Postby david cohen » Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:18 pm

Sno, Prof and Frank all raise excellent points about how the eyewitness can have inaccuracies. I'd like to add that sometimes, reporters can be prone to this too. It doesn't mean anyone is being malicious in their intent, just jaded via preconceived notions, past experiences, or linguistics.
david cohen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1410
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:48 pm

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

Postby Maggie » Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:38 pm

This is really quite amazing. First, we hear over and over again that our opinions are not valid because we weren't there. Now the eye witness, the guy who was not only there but was centrally involved, comes forward and points out problems with Heimsness' account.

You would think that this would give you pause. You would think that those who disagree with my and Johnny's position would at least say that we need an independent investigation of what went down that night.

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.

It's so sad and so pathetic.
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 The One » Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:55 pm

In every incident there is always a better way it could have been handled, Maggie. With what the public knows, could Heimness had handled things different that would have kept Paulie alive? Most likely. But based on what the public knows, Paulie could also had done things differently that would have kept him alive. From what we know, Paulie did more to get him killed then Heimness did.
The One
Senior Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:45 pm

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

Postby bcs89 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:00 pm

Maggie wrote:This is really quite amazing. First, we hear over and over again that our opinions are not valid because we weren't there. Now the eye witness, the guy who was not only there but was centrally involved, comes forward and points out problems with Heimsness' account.

You would think that this would give you pause. You would think that those who disagree with my and Johnny's position would at least say that we need an independent investigation of what went down that night.

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.

It's so sad and so pathetic.


Maggie, For my part, I do not think, nor have I ever said "no more questions, lets just put this to rest" or anything remotely like that. My problem with your posts is simply all the unfounded accusations and hateful opinions you throw around under the protective blanket of "Grieving". 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) , as well as my only post to you (which could have been nicer).

What do you say we let bygones be bygones? In the end I think we both really want nothing more than to let the healing begin - and hopefully, try to prevent this incredibly sad situation from ever happening again.

Friends?
Last edited by bcs89 on Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bcs89
Senior Member
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:10 pm

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

Postby jonnygothispen » Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:09 pm

wack wack wrote:
jonnygothispen wrote:However, Mr. OMalley was there. The police lied.


Decades of eyewitness account research suggest that Mr. O'Malley's perception and description of the incident are not entirely reflective of the reality of the situation.
Likewise, police officers routinely lie. And we now know there was a colluded effort by officials to cover up. And in this case, there's a history of overreaction by Mr. Heimness.

Let me ask, a drunk approaches you while you have your gun drawn flailing and swatting at you. You do not shoot him. You also have years of experience with drunks. You have beat the crap out drunks, and one time so bad that the bartenders called 9-11 or the police again because it was so brutal and out of context, which bootstraps what O'Malley saw. 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. Do you choose to pump 3 slugs into his chest or do you take the total of what just happened into account and come up with another approach?

Heimness chose to pump 3 bullets into the guys chest while he stood there with his hands at his side. That's messed up.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

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

Postby jonnygothispen » Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:14 pm

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.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

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

Postby O.J. » Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:21 pm

Image
O.J.
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3000
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:13 am

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar