MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Friday, August 22, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 81.0° F  Mostly Cloudy
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 » Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:49 am

For Maggie and Crockett. How would the officer know that the dipshit was just drunk and not coked up or on heroin, bath salts, etc... and does the dipshit get any of the blame or does it all fall on the cop?
amused2death
Senior Member
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:17 pm

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

Postby Gerth » Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:47 am

This officer had the overnight State Street beat for years, he's had thousands of dealings with very drunk people, I'd guess a lot of them a lot bigger and scarier than Paul Heenan. Clearly there was something different about this situation.

I'd say that it was because the call was for a home invasion, the suspect was seen struggling with the home owner, advanced on the officer aggressively, and was grabbing for his gun. The homeowner/witness substantiated these claims so that's fairly objective.
Gerth
Senior Member
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:16 am

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

Postby gargantua » Sat Dec 29, 2012 1:26 pm

fennel wrote:Again, I have to wonder whether the British model wouldn't have prevented this. If, by virtue of the fact that an officer carries a firearm, s/he has to respond to the threat of disarming by using lethal force ... eh, it seems like a prescription for just this kind a disaster.


The British model can't work here because unlike the British public, the American public is armed to the teeth.

Maggie: I don't know Officer Heimsness either, so I guess that means I'm objective too. Yet I don't see the situation the same way you do. Imagine. Maybe the fact that neither of us were there has something to do with that,
gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4023
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

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

Postby Maggie » Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:17 pm

gargantua wrote:Maggie: I don't know Officer Heimsness either, so I guess that means I'm objective too. Yet I don't see the situation the same way you do. Imagine. Maybe the fact that neither of us were there has something to do with that,


I can't argue with you gargantua about that. And because I wasn't there and I don't want to go insane over this tragedy I have decided to move on.

I hope I haven't insulted anybody with my comments. People who disagree with me are good people. Everybody here is a good decent person. Perhaps we just react differently to a terrible come alive nightmare. Maybe it made me feel better about myself to think I would have done something different had I been in his situation. We really never know how we will react in dangerous violent situations until we are in the actual situation. We are not superheros. Even cops.

I apologize to Officer Heimsness for my harsh comments. The hell you are going through now is a harsh enough punishment. A life sentence in fact.

The only thing I do demand is that our elected leaders and the Police and Fire Commission take a hard look about changing the shoot to kill policy. It is wrong. Officer Heimsness in some ways is as much of the victim of this foolish policy as Paul. Except Paul is dead.
Maggie
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Near East Side Madison

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

Postby jonnygothispen » Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:09 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:Since there is clearly a complete lack of understanding of the law on the part of a few forons here I thought I would spell it out a bit clearer. Police officers and armed security are trained specifically to treat any attempt to take their firearm...
The only problem with that is the story changed from "grabbed my gun" to "grabbed my arm." Not to mention that it's an iron-clad alibi, and the first thing any officer would fall back on if he/she exercised poor judgement in any way that brought their judgement into question. This guy has exercised very poor judgement in the past. That immediately brings his behavior into question unless he uses the iron-clad "he grabbed for my gun."

I remember the David Lopez situation. The guy dragged a scantily clad woman across Willy Street in the wee hours of the night. I think they tazed him twice, once before he jumped in the police car and ran it into a tree a couple blocks away, and once after. He knocked a couple of female officers down. Finally, 2 male cops tackled him. He was coked up. Now that sounds like it was a lot more dangerous. The guy is still alive.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

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

Postby Henry Vilas » Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:16 pm

The officer responded to a burglary call and saw two people engaged in a struggle. Of course, he drew his gun. And when one of the struggling individuals disobyed his order (at gunpoint) to get down and instead rushed him, what did you expect he should have done... holster his firearm and then take his pepper spray canister out of his belt and use it?
Last edited by Henry Vilas on Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19727
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

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

Postby jonnygothispen » Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:19 pm

I take it he had 2 arms, plus a gun in one. TRY to grab the pepper spray first at least with the added protection of already having a gun aimed at him. Then shoot to disable, not to kill. I'd have to be there to know for sure, like everyone else.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

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

Postby Henry Vilas » Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:21 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:I take it he had 2 arms, plus a gun in one. TRY to grab the pepper spray first at least with the added protection of having a gun in one. Then shoot to disable, not to kill. I'd have to be there to know for sure, like everyone else.

No police officer is trained to just wing 'em. And police usually use both hands when aiming a weapon.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19727
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

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

Postby jonnygothispen » Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:22 pm

... and the guy is dead.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

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

Postby green union terrace chair » Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:03 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:Then shoot to disable, not to kill.

That only happens in movies. You don't shoot someone without the intention to kill the target, because any gun wound can be fatal.
green union terrace chair
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2863
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Memorial Union

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

Postby jonnygothispen » Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:52 pm

If you cant aim at a dudes leg and hit it from 5 feet away, why do you have a gun? But as it has been mentioned, no one knows exactly what happened yet, if ever. I believe Heimness over reacted, thats all. Too many emotions, etc. And he has a pattern of it. Speculation based on his documented history. I think fear entered his mind and that was that, "BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!" and the kid is dead... Oops, now what?
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

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

Postby green union terrace chair » Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:02 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:If you cant aim at a dudes leg and hit it from 5 feet away, why do you have a gun?

Yes, aim at someone's leg but don't hit any major arteries / veins and also don't hit the femur and hope that this magic shot causes enough pain to make the person drop and break off their attack. That's as Hollywood as trying to shoot a gun out of someone's hand. Police are trained to shoot at the biggest target that's most guaranteed to stop an assailant and that's the chest.

Here, take a look at this and tell me where a cop should be aiming at to reliably cause a stopping injury but not kill:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... tem_en.svg
green union terrace chair
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2863
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Memorial Union

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

Postby Bland » Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:33 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:If you cant aim at a dudes leg and hit it from 5 feet away......
in the dark.....while someone is yelling at you...after struggling with a drunk guy you assume is a burglar who may be coming back for more....oh and in under a second-because that's how long it takes to close a distance of only 5 feet. (I really don't think some of you are even trying to understand how quickly this all went down.)
Bland
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

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

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:47 pm

Johnny I'm just to take a wild stab in the dark and guess that you have never fired a hand gun in your life?
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2312
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

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

Postby Meade » Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:07 am

Maggie is right to ask questions. Mr. Heenan might be alive today if Mr. Heimsness had not drawn his service revolver.

But somehow, Mr. Heenan had become stupid drunk. How? Somehow, Mr. Heenan had the keys to open and enter the O'Malley's front door. How? Someone called 911 and reported a burglary in progress without conveying the critical information that the intruder was an unarmed drunken neighbor who had entered the wrong house. Why?

This sad event would not have ended the way it did if: 1. the O'malleys had been trained in and armed for self-defense, 2. a Madison culture of alcohol abuse had not lulled Paul Heenan into wrongly believing that public drunkenness is safe, desirable and acceptable, 3. 911 had never been called, 4. everyone always locked their doors before going to bed, and 5. the second amendment was repealed and all guns and ammunition everywhere, including police guns and ammunition, had been confiscated and prohibited by the government.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar