MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Saturday, September 20, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 74.0° F  Light Rain
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 david cohen » Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:35 pm

Heenan was already criminally trespassing on the O'Malley's property, so I think that fact (as related to 911 by Mrs. O'Malley) wasn't lost on the officer when he arrived to find Heenan and O'Malley in a physical altercation. Totality of the circumstances and all of that...what I still wonder is what did Heenan do between being dropped off around 2am by the owner of Weary Traveler and 2:30 or so when he entered the O'Malley residence? That's a long time on a cold night for a drunk to just be hanging outside.
david cohen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1356
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:48 pm

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

Postby snoqueen » Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:56 pm

I have wondered the same thing, and I also wonder whether the victim's BAC was all the toxicology info available. I can understand why some of this information might be withheld due to an ongoing investigation, so I'm not complaining here. I'm just wondering.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11499
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

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

Postby jonnygothispen » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:18 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:
jonnygothispen wrote:1. He easily separated from Pauli.

Please cite evidence of that? He separated with a gun in his hand from someone so drunk he could only flail and swat at him
jonnygothispen wrote:2. Heimsness inability to accurately assess Pauli's drunken state despite how ineffective Pauli was in their brief confrontation

Sure, in a very short amount of time, while being attacked, and trying to determine if his life was in danger, he didn't squeeze in a field sobriety test. A violent person and a drunk person can look a lot alike when the drunk person is attacking you.Paulie was standing with his hands at his side and glancing in another direction when Heimsness made the decision, not during the brief time they were engaged.
jonnygothispen wrote:3. Pauli was standing there with his hands at his side.

Again, do you have any evidence of that? Have you even read the police report with O'Malley's statement or the statements of either of the officers who were present? Let me guess; "no because police lie" That's directly from O'Malley's statement
jonnygothispen wrote:4. The neighbor yelled several times "He's my neighbor! He's my neighbor!" and if the reports are true, also said or may have said, "Don't shoot! He's not a burglar!

The first part of this has been address multiple times but
jonnygothispen wrote:You can ignore the facts until you turn blue in the face if it makes you feel better.

as to the second part, again please cite your evidence. You've clearly investigated this incident far better than the Department of Justice, the MPD, the County Sheriff, or the District Attorney's Office so why aren't you sharing all these "facts" you've dug up?
Let's put the shoe on the other foot, or in your case, take it out of your mouth so you can switch feet...

Officer X gets a call that there's a drunk guy wrestling around with a neighbor. He approaches the scene with that mindset. As he approaches, the neighbor yells, "He tried to kill me! He's armed!" but officer X either cites "auditory exclusion" or sticks with the information given to him by dispatch and decides to talk to the armed fellow instead. RE: he doesn't notice anything else around him despite that his life may depend on it, and also doesn't adapt to the changing situation despite someone strongly alerting him to it. How logical is that?

Lets try another: An armed officer approaches 2 men tangling in the dark with weapon drawn and yells, "GET DOWN! GET DOWN!" They disengage, but the one who is armed can't see that this is a police officer, and only sees a dark figure with weapon drawn and aiming at him. He also can't hear another officer in the background yelling "POLICE! POLICE!" and shoots the cop 3 times in the chest. The District Attorney backs up the man who shot the officer, "Well, he feared for his life, and it was dark. The officer didn't clearly state who he was, and because of auditory exclusion, the citizen who fired the shots couldn't hear the other police officer alerting him." The Chief of police reiterates the story citing "stand your ground" principles, and ignores a reporters question when asked what the other police officer saw or said. Case closed. Move along. Logical?

in your world maybe...
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3133
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

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

Postby david cohen » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:51 pm

Sno, I don't think the toxicology result have been finalized. They are done via tissue samples as opposed to blood samples (for alcohol levels). Another thing that has not been explored in this case: while it's been assumed that Heenan was drunk and confused and entered a home he thought was his own, there is no proof to back up that assumption. Unless I've missed something, Heenan didn't tell Mr. O'Malley that he (Heenan) had made an error.
david cohen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1356
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:48 pm

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

Postby gargantua » Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:08 pm

This has been stated in various ways numerous times but it seems to bear repeating. None of us were there. None of us knows what the participants were thinking. None of us saw how quickly events unfolded. What we have are the statements of the surviving witnesses. Human beings that were caught up in a situation in the dark, that was confusing, at 2:30 in the morning. A situation that left a man dead and witnesses who were understandably traumatized by witnessing, in a manner of moments, a man getting shot.

I'm fine with having an independent outside entity investigate this. I'm just troubled by peoples' willingness to make judgements that we are clearly not qualified to make. That's why this damn thread has gone on for so long. No one is changing their mind, but hey, let's argue anyway. Not me. This is my last post on this particular topic.
gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4099
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

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

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:51 pm

See my next post
Last edited by Francis Di Domizio on Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

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

Postby Gerth » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:07 pm

I wonder how weird/awful/surreal it must be for Walter to see all this playing out in front of him and can say nothing about it. I'm not making light of it, I'm not, but how strange it must be.
Gerth
Senior Member
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:16 am

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

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:28 am

Gerth, thank you for that little dose of reality.

I'm deleting my last post and this will be my last post in this thread. I originally joined the conversation to give some perspective on use of force training, and why and armed officer would use deadly force in this case. Clearly I took a wrong turn.

When a tragedy such as this takes place, there is value in discussion and debate, but not in name calling or ridicule. For my part in that I apologize. I don't know if an independent review would add real value in fact finding to the process, but I think it would add a perceived value for the community and that is often just as important.

I don't know if Walter has been reading this thread (I hope not) but if so, I also want to specifically apologize to him for my part in dragging it out.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

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

Postby Bland » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:11 am

jonnygothispen wrote: something went horribly wrong.

I am quite certain no one would agree with you more than Officer Heimsness.
Bland
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

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

Postby jonnygothispen » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:36 am

david cohen wrote:Sno, I don't think the toxicology result have been finalized. They are done via tissue samples as opposed to blood samples (for alcohol levels). Another thing that has not been explored in this case: while it's been assumed that Heenan was drunk and confused and entered a home he thought was his own, there is no proof to back up that assumption. Unless I've missed something, Heenan didn't tell Mr. O'Malley that he (Heenan) had made an error.
I'm wondering what caused Heimsness to take that action when the guy was 5 to 6 feet away with his hands at his side? Does he use recreational drugs? Was Heimsness drug tested that evening? I guess we'll never know if he was buzzed up on caffeine or what. or if his reaction was just a quirk in his personality. It's easy to blame the drunk guy, but was there something else going on, or is that too objective?

I doubt anyone would argue if he pulled the trigger while they were engaged, but he pulled it when the man was 5 to 6 feet away and not re-engaging, and just standing there with his hands at his side. How does a fellow some 75 pounds heavier THEN decide to do what he did? What possessed him?

Awfully nice of you, Francis, to act pious now after using a premeditated slant in your posts, and throwing accusations at me that aren't accurate. Sure, I'll be your scapegoat.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3133
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

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

Postby jonnygothispen » Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:50 pm

Bland wrote:
jonnygothispen wrote: something went horribly wrong.

I am quite certain no one would agree with you more than Officer Heimsness.
I believe it. If policy is changed slightly, or better training is provided, it won't all be in vain.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3133
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

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

Postby bdog » Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:59 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:How does a fellow some 75 pounds heavier THEN decide to do what he did?

Do you think that he was not threat to the officer based on the weight difference? I think that is just silly.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3247
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

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

Postby jonnygothispen » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:06 pm

bdog wrote:
jonnygothispen wrote:How does a fellow some 75 pounds heavier THEN decide to do what he did?

Do you think that he was not threat to the officer based on the weight difference? I think that is just silly.
I think what I think doesn't really matter. The courts will decide that.

But I just can't figure out why Heimsness pooped his pants after they were disengaged. I had a gun held to my head in a cornfield in the middle of winter about 25 years ago when I was homeless (The guy thought I wanted to have sex with his huge wife, which wasn't true). I wasn't afraid because I realized I had no power over the whole situation. It felt really stupid. So I'm wondering how this guy (with a gun) pooped his pants when the other guy (w/o a gun) wasn't coming after him. It sounds like he isn't able to handle situations like this very calmly or professionally.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3133
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

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

Postby bdog » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:15 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:(w/o a gun)

How was the officer supposed to know this?

Nice cornfield story but I have no idea what your point is.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3247
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

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

Postby jonnygothispen » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:21 pm

bdog wrote:
jonnygothispen wrote:(w/o a gun)

How was the officer supposed to know this?

Nice cornfield story but I have no idea what your point is.
How does any officer know that about anyone? Using regular logic, why didn't Paulie pull out a gun before he approached the officer? Wasn't it obvious how drunk Paulie was by how ineffective he was? What's the story on officer Heimsness inability to adapt to the O'Malley's warnings?

The point is that if I could remain calm w/o pooping my pants, and I'm not trained, how is it that someone, who should be used to situations like this, pooped his pants when the guy was standing 5 to 6 feet away with his hands at his side?
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3133
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

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

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar