MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Thursday, January 29, 2015 |  Madison, WI: 32.0° 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 amused2death » Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:12 am

Johnny - Has it occurred to you that the only reason that the suspect didn't attack the officer again was because he didn't have a chance?
It's amazing how much you claim to know could have should have and would have happened if you were the officer but the bottom line is that by all accounts things happened according to policy. The officer didn't make the policy so don't blame him for it. Clearly you are anti-cop which just means that everything you say has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Still want someone to explain why the yelling it's my neighbor changes anything and has any relevance to how this went down.
amused2death
Senior Member
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:17 pm

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

Postby jonnygothispen » Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:57 am

Has it ever occurred to you to consider what actually happened instead of creating your own scenario? He wasn't attacking, and was 5 to 6 feet away when the officer opened fire. An officer who was warned several times that this wasn't the kind of dangerous situation that required a gun.

I'm not anti-cop, that's ridiculous. But I recognize the reality that police officers aren't any different than anyone else because of the experiences I've had. Police have the hardest job there is in my opinion, but they should also be held to the highest standard.

What's truly amazing is that you're attributing the statements of people who were there to me. I wasn't there, and I'm still slightly on the fence because more information might come in. It is looking bad for Mr. Heimsness so far though. We're talking about someone who was killed. This isn't jay-walking.

Clearly you've taken a side and anything that opposes what you believed at first must be minimized by making false accusations. Try to base your emotions in reality next time. Thanks.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

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

Postby gargantua » Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:39 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:I'm not anti-cop, that's ridiculous.

Clearly you've taken a side


Um, Jonny, hate to tell you this but someone who is transparently anti-cop and has taken a side has been posting under your name a lot on this thread. You might want to go back and look at those, you paragon of impartiality you!
gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4482
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

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

Postby jonnygothispen » Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:39 pm

It's not my fault when or if an officer acts inappropriately. It's also not my fault that the some of the police I've encountered in other cities were anti-citizen, lied and/or stole things. I absolutely respect responsible Police officers. I'd even say without a doubt that I have a much, much higher respect for the good ones given what I've been through because I realize how many aren't honest. I can't imagine being "anti-cop" now. So much of our world revolves around the things they do everyday to make us safer. But it doesn't mean I want be an apologist for bad behavior either. If you can't hold civil servants whose salaries you pay to a high standard, then who can you?

Wow!!! People are supposed to shut up about what they've been through abut a certain group (police) while others make the same kind of generalizations about another group, and that's OK? Great! No need to go any further! I'll just go home, make some tea, and wait for the next controversial scene and let you guys handle the apologies.

I guess I have to say this again: I thought this was going to be all Paulie's fault, so I was just bummed out, and I didn't know him. How can you not be saddened by something like this? It affects me even now.

When I found out Paulie was disengaged, I thought that maybe there was something else to it. I jumped in then because there is always an another side to things, and people were assuming it couldn't be that way. And also because it was kind of surreal watching people who weren't there go after Maggie as if they knew exactly what happened.

Then we all found out that the police department dodged an important question, and the DA misrepresented the reaffirmed witness account. That actually backs up the view I was trying to present that things aren't always as the police say. Please explain how the cover up by these officials is anyone's fault but their own?

It also looks like there will be more details coming out that are unfavorable to the officer's version as this unfolds, if the speaker at the MLK building was correctly citing the internal review, and not just creating an inflammatory account.

If true, this is going to be a huge lawsuit for Madison, and the 3rd one instigated by the actions of one officer. I had nothing to do with that either.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

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

Postby snoqueen » Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:02 pm

waylan wrote: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 just wanted to highlight this because it's so poignant and fleshes out what we out here in the general public know about the shooting victim.

If I read this right (and I mean to be totally respectful here) he was going through a rough time and was known to be drinking heavily and habitually to the point he knew he needed to sober up. Maybe he moved to Madison to try and sober up -- I don't know (though Madison is not exactly the place I'd be moving to do that job).

As we all know, heavy alcohol abuse puts a person at risk for a whole lot of disasters, and makes it less surprising when one of those disasters (indeed, the big one) happens. I'm not saying this to accuse, exonerate, blame, or even to change the discussion. I just found my understanding of what happened shifted when I read waylan's words, and what happened seemed even more inevitable than it did when I first started sorting out print reports of the facts of the case.

I'm more than twice as old as you guys, and I could list a whole page of dead people who ought to be my age but were heavy drinkers and never made it. I'm very sorry all this happened, and all I can tell you is you'll see more deaths among that cohort of friends in the next few decades. This is an inescapable fact of statistics and fate. May you all stay safe, each and every one of you.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11953
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

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

Postby waylan » Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:42 am

snoqueen wrote:
waylan wrote: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 just wanted to highlight this because it's so poignant and fleshes out what we out here in the general public know about the shooting victim.

If I read this right (and I mean to be totally respectful here) he was going through a rough time and was known to be drinking heavily and habitually to the point he knew he needed to sober up. Maybe he moved to Madison to try and sober up -- I don't know (though Madison is not exactly the place I'd be moving to do that job).

As we all know, heavy alcohol abuse puts a person at risk for a whole lot of disasters, and makes it less surprising when one of those disasters (indeed, the big one) happens. I'm not saying this to accuse, exonerate, blame, or even to change the discussion. I just found my understanding of what happened shifted when I read waylan's words, and what happened seemed even more inevitable than it did when I first started sorting out print reports of the facts of the case.

I'm more than twice as old as you guys, and I could list a whole page of dead people who ought to be my age but were heavy drinkers and never made it. I'm very sorry all this happened, and all I can tell you is you'll see more deaths among that cohort of friends in the next few decades. This is an inescapable fact of statistics and fate. May you all stay safe, each and every one of you.


Snoqueen,

I just typed out a huge reply, and when I hit enter, it got erased. It was beautiful.....

To sum it up, yes, we all know the effects of alcohol and habitual alcohol use. Paulie was not a habitual drunk. Paulie was a smart man who knew better, and was putting himself in a position to live up to his own expectations of himself. I'm saying part of the reason he was doubly drunk was because he had been off the stuff for a while. He was turning a huge corner in his life, all of us who knew him were so excited to see this new chapter of his life unfold.

None of us are at our best all the time. We all have our moments of compromised decisions. However, even if Paulie was typical alcoholic, (which he wasn't,) would it make his death at gunpoint justifiable?

The police haven't been straightforward with their facts since day one, when they told the press they stopped a potential burglary. They knew it was untrue immediately. Then the half truths continued, from saying people never enter other peoples homes accidentally, to withholding the neighbors pleas to the officer. How can anyone be surprised the public is demanding an outside evaluation when they've repeatedly been misleading?

I cannot believe it is acceptable for the police to not announce themselves when pointing a gun at an unarmed man. It seems like a no brainer. It takes less time to say that than to repeatedly announce, "get on the ground." According to the 37 page report, which I read thoroughly, paulie suddenly "woke up" from his debauchery when he saw the man screaming at him with a gun. Had he said "Police," well, that could have made a huge difference.

Also, I do want to offer my sympathy to officer Heimsness and his family. He is a human being just like the rest of us. He and I have many mutual friends I deeply respect, so I do not wish to attack his character. People want to paint him as a villain, and I can't get behind that. But, we as humans make mistakes. If what he did was by the book, than the book needs to be revised. If it happened here in this instance, it could happen again, and that shouldn't be ok with anyone.
waylan
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 5:56 pm

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

Postby snoqueen » Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:26 am

Sorry your original reply vanished. I think we all know what that's like.

I can agree with you on the principle outside review is always appropriate for any action by any governmental body. That's what keeps our system of government -- which includes law enforcement -- open and responsive.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11953
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

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

Postby Meade » Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:38 pm

snoqueen wrote: outside review

Done.
http://host.madison.com/news/local/crim ... 963f4.html
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

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

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:09 pm

waylan wrote:I cannot believe it is acceptable for the police to not announce themselves when pointing a gun at an unarmed man. It seems like a no brainer. It takes less time to say that than to repeatedly announce, "get on the ground." According to the 37 page report, which I read thoroughly, paulie suddenly "woke up" from his debauchery when he saw the man screaming at him with a gun. Had he said "Police," well, that could have made a huge difference.


Standard operating procedure is to identify yourself when giving a command, even if weapons are not being brandished. The police report did comment on this but determined Heenan should have had ample clues as to Heimness being a police officer. Given Heenan's level of intoxication that is probably debatable. I'm not sure that would have mattered as much as you think though. Remember O'Malley also stated that Heenan didn't become hostile or initiate a physical confrontation with him, until he (O'Malley) mentioned that "(he) could have called the police."

The question of course isn't "could Heenan determine if Heimness was an officer" but rather, could Heimness determine that Heenan was unable to identify him. Investigators seemed to think Heimness made an error in not identifying himself, but given the information he had, Heimness had no reason to believe Heenan couldn't ID him from the visual clues.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2806
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

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

Postby jonnygothispen » Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:41 pm

Say whatever you want about it, but there can't be a single person in this thread who would wish for an officer with Mr. Heimsness mind-set to have answered, or to answer the call if it was them, or one of their friends or family who had so much to drink that they didn't know what they were doing.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

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

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:01 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:there can't be a single person in this thread...


Well, that settles that then.
'Cuz if there's one thing I've learned from my time on TDPF, it's that jonny speaks for us all.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 9102
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

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

Postby The One » Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:42 am

jonnygothispen wrote:Say whatever you want about it, but there can't be a single person in this thread who would wish for an officer with Mr. Heimsness mind-set to have answered, or to answer the call if it was them, or one of their friends or family who had so much to drink that they didn't know what they were doing.

I have no problem with Heimsness responding to any call that my family, friends, or myself make. The guy is a police officer and if a situation gets to a point that I need a police officer to respond, I don't care who it is.
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 rabble » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:14 am

I feel the same way.

The difference for me is, the point at which the police need to be notified is now drastically different from where it used to be.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6712
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

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

Postby Meade » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:43 am

First of all, my home is not a gun-free zone.
Second, I keep my doors and windows locked.
And third, if my home were invaded by ill-advised burglars, rapists, murderers or drunks, and if it were possible to request a specific officer when I call 911, I would request Officer Steve Heimsness.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

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

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:08 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:Say whatever you want about it, but there can't be a single person in this thread who would wish for an officer with Mr. Heimsness mind-set to have answered, or to answer the call if it was them, or one of their friends or family who had so much to drink that they didn't know what they were doing.



Would you be referring to Heimsness's mindset when he responded to a burglary in progress, when he saw the suspected burglar attacking the homeowner, or when the suspected burglar charged him?

Since the person attacking him had a recent history of violence, wouldn't that have affected Heimsness's mindset?

While you are thinking about it, since you seem to know what everyone thinks, do you believe there is a single person in this thread who would want one of their friends or relatives to drink so much that they don't know what they are doing? Do you think there is a single person in this thread that would want a loved one killed because they didn't defend themselves from a random attacker?
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2806
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

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