david cohen wrote:,, But for those two facts, your friend would still be alive today. Sorry.
David, Paul Heenan was not my friend. I never even heard of Paul Heenan before he was killed.
This is a very important point because many of the forons defending Heimsness are Heimsness' friend.
My viewpoint is objective and their viewpoints are not.
I should also mention that I do not recall reading Leuders' piece about Heimsness and, even if I did, I doubt if one column would sway my opinion that much.
Finally, I want to clarify by what I meant when I wrote that Heimsness could have run away. Clearly, if Paul Heenan had a weapon he would have used it so, therefore, just as Heimsness himself stipulates, that Paul did not have a weapon, he could have backed away or ran behind his police car or in his police car and let things settle down.
This is exactly what I mean by poor judgment. If Paul had any kind of weapon then Heimsness would have been justified but Heimsness himself says he saw no weapon. And Paul had already backed away or been pushed away where 5 to 6 feet were separating them. At this point shooting Paul is totally wrong.
I speculate that Paul pissed Heimsness off, just like that drunk in the bar on State Street pissed Heimsness off and just like the people driving the van in the parking ramp pissed Heimsness off. Heimsness is a hot head. He can't control his temper and the result is an unarmed drunk is dead.
For those of you who say "well if he had just followed the officers orders" he would be alive. This is ridiculous because extremely drunk people are by definition irrational. As an experienced law enforcement officer Heimsness knows this and had to realize that he is dealing with an UNARMED out of control skinny kid who really did not present much of a threat to someone bigger and carrying a gun.