Police shootings and justice

Carcharodon · Dec 11, 2010

It makes sense. I could be wrong but in the recent Appleton PD shooting werent they investigated by Green bay PD or something? You know, where the guy came at them with a sword and they shot him dead. In my mind (not being there of course) a taser would seem the right tool for the job.

GlockRDH · Dec 11, 2010

Jon Bonavia said:
Thank you Mr. Huckleberry. You avoided the point of the article, for not reading it to learn that neither DNA nor fingerprints were found on the victim's gun.

Many Wisconsin users on OCDO have significant rap sheets at http://wcca.wicourts.gov/simpleCaseSearch.xsl that should preclude their possession of weapons.

"Anti-gun" is hateful speech. I prefer pro gun-control.

#1. IF i reach for an officers gun and he shoots me...am I 'in the clear' if I havent quite reached the weapon? Id like to see YOU lunge(and not quite touching it) for an officers weapon then claim getting shot wasnt justified.

#2 WHO from the OCDO do you actually know of that has a 'rap sheet' that SHOULD preclude possession of 'weapons' (your word. do you feel that that should include pepper spray, knives, or a ball point pen that could be stuck in your eye?) Or did you really mean 'firearms' ? An oversight on word choice or was it intentional?
BTW that 'rap sheet' MUST include a felony to preclude FIREARM possession.

#3 Theres nothing 'hate-ful' about you being 'anti-gun'...because you ARE 'anti-gun'. your idea of 'gun-control' is total elimination of all guns...starting with the law abiding citizens...Am I correct on that analyzation?

Citizen · Dec 11, 2010

MontanaFLHT said:
Regardless of who started this thread, it is always a good idea to have civilian oversight of police involved shooting reviews. We have an independent judge and jury to determine if we have broken the law. Police officers should have no less.

You know, you have a point there.

After Tennessee vs Garner, police authority to shoot was restricted down to mostly just self-defense. Not literally; I'm not making a blanket statement of law.

If self-defense is an affirmative defense for the rest of us, where we have to prove the killing was necessary (unless the prosecutor or grand jury decide against proceeding because of the evidence), why not make police go through the same thing? I know they do sometimes, but it occurs to me that it seems the standard of review is less an "affirmative defense" sort of thing for police. By this I mean, it seems it is rather assumed the cop is justified unless the evidence shows it wasn't, whereas with average people who do not wear a uniform the reverse is true--if the evidence doesn't show it was justified, we receive legal process.

GLOCK21GB · Dec 11, 2010

MKEgal said:
Even though anti-gun people are 'legal targets' so to say, your post is WAAAY beyond what's acceptable.

Attack her ideas, not her person, and do not rejoice that the logical outcome of her way of life is that she will be a victim. Her suffering will be justice enough, and is not for us to mete out.

Many a hoplophobe has seen the error of her ways after being attacked by the very criminals she would not work to disarm. We can only hope that they don't kill her, so that she can tell everyone that her previous ideas (laws somehow disarming criminals) were in fact quite wrong.

Or this could be yet another persona that will eventually be banned. Judge for yourself.

As for the original article, I think that an impartial, non-involved, non-LEO board of review for police misconduct of all kinds is a Very Good Idea. I also find it amazing that WAVE would be so virulently anti-gun as to point out that the Only Ones aren't "all that".

She is a troll, that is here to troll. My post was vague & no where in it do i name specifically who it's aimed at. so It was not a personal attack.

oak1971 · Dec 11, 2010

BROKENSPROKET said:
Anti-gun? I read the article as it is posted here, and from what I can tell is that it calls for ACCOUNTABILITY in the Internal Affairs of Law Enforcement Agencies when deadly force is used, or am I missing something?

You are missing something.

Shotgun · Dec 12, 2010

Uncorroborated claim

Jon Bonavia said:
Many Wisconsin users on OCDO have significant rap sheets at http://wcca.wicourts.gov/simpleCaseSearch.xsl that should preclude their possession of weapons.

Are you prepared to back that up? And how would you substantiate such a claim when the actual names of many people on here are not used?

What do you consider to be "a significant rap sheet?"

And when you say "should preclude" do you mean "will preclude" or that you "wish would preclude."

Passive101 · Dec 12, 2010

Carcharodon said:
It makes sense. I could be wrong but in the recent Appleton PD shooting werent they investigated by Green bay PD or something? You know, where the guy came at them with a sword and they shot him dead. In my mind (not being there of course) a taser would seem the right tool for the job.

"a taser would seem the right tool for the job"

Lethal threat is dealt with lethal force generally. Here is what happens sometimes when LE tries "to be nice".

4 officers vs 1 man with knife.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suNKWwPnkJ0

The 21 ft rule is a bare minimum number.

protias · Dec 12, 2010

Passive101 said:
"a taser would seem the right tool for the job"

Lethal threat is dealt with lethal force generally. Here is what happens sometimes when LE tries "to be nice".

4 officers vs 1 man with knife.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suNKWwPnkJ0

The 21 ft rule is a bare minimum number.

http://www.defenseproducts101.com/statestatutesummary_page2.html

Wisconsin Sta. Ann. Chapter 939. Crimes - General Provisions. Chapter 939.22 Words and phrases defined. (10) Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded ***; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing great harm ***; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295(4); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

Chapter 941.295 Possession of electric weapon. Subsection (1) On or after July 1, 1982, whoever sells, transports, manufactures, possesses or goes armed with any electric weapon is guilty of a Class E felony. Subsection (4) In this section, "electric weapon" means any device which is designed, redesigned, used or intended to be used, offensively or defensively, to immobilize or incapacitate persons by the use electric current.

SUMMARY: Possession and sales of Stunning Devices are banned.

Having/using a taser is felony in the state of WI!

Shotgun · Dec 12, 2010

protias said:
http://www.defenseproducts101.com/statestatutesummary_page2.html

Having/using a taser is felony in the state of WI!

And interestingly, an electric cattle prod is completely legal.

http://www.farmandfleet.com/product...od.html?lref=/catalog/find.aspx?t=cattle+prod

Jon Bonavia · Dec 12, 2010

Shotgun said:
And interestingly, an electric cattle prod is completely legal.

http://www.farmandfleet.com/product...od.html?lref=/catalog/find.aspx?t=cattle+prod

"941.295(4) In this section, “electric weapon” means any device which is designed, redesigned, used or intended to be used, offensively or defensively, to immobilize or incapacitate persons by the use of electric current." Intent of whom, the design engineer or the gang-banger that purchased it, maybe putting a pistol grip on it, his redesign? What's your professional background?

Oh, sorry, MD.

eye95 · Dec 12, 2010

Crassus said:
Where does it say he is anti Gun?

His own profile. You should check it yourself.

nonameisgood · Dec 12, 2010

When Dallas (TX) implemented the civilian review board for the PD, they predicted a cataclysm, which didn't materialize. A bad shoot is a bad shoot.

Shooting someone who is unarmed, even if s/he is standing and lunging for an officer's weapon, is a gross overreaction. If I did the same, it might be justified to stop an ongoing threat, but I do pay the PD to take certain risks not expected of individual citizens. LEO's should be better trained and better prepared than me to handle difficult situations. They should handle them differently than I would, and if an officer is too afraid to practice this kind of restraint, then LE is probably the wrong job.

LR Yote 312 · Dec 12, 2010

eye95 said:
His own profile. You should check it yourself.

We really need a screening system.....
Seems John will let anyone in....including Anti Gun Nut Jobs.

LR Yote

LR Yote 312 · Dec 12, 2010

Jon Bonavia said:
Many Wisconsin users on OCDO have significant rap sheets at http://wcca.wicourts.gov/simpleCaseSearch.xsl that should preclude their possession of weapons.

I am Bonded to carry large amounts of cash and other valuables. Even my tattoos are registered. How is that possible with a Rap sheet ??

LR Yote

eye95 · Dec 12, 2010

LR Yote 312 said:
We really need a screening system.....
Seems John will let anyone in....including Anti Gun Nut Jobs.

LR Yote

I have no problem with them letting anyone in. All views should be welcome. My problem is that someone who is clearly anti-gun, is not engaging in the debate he would if his intentions were noble. Instead, he is engaging in actions that amount to "stirring the pot."

He bears watching. And we all need to be aware of who he is, lest anyone be fooled into doing something he otherwise would not.

"Jon," I invite you to rationally, openly, and honestly debate your desire for gun-control with us. If your motives are anything else (and it appears that they are), I would ask you to do those things someplace else.

Shotgun · Dec 12, 2010

WAVE people have never been about open, honest and rational debate. Nor have they ever shown an interest in hearing other opinions. Why would they start now?

The odds that this is a genuine "Bonavia" are quite low.

eye95 · Dec 12, 2010

Whatever the honesty about identity and regardless of whether he participates in rational, open, and honest debate, we should allow him to post until and unless it is clearly demonstrated that he is trolling or otherwise violating the rules.

We are the good guys. We don't use their dishonest tactics. They would ban us just because we disagree. We are better than that.

More importantly, the righteousness of our issue (Liberty) allows us to be magnanimous as we don't have to stoop to such tactics to win the hearts and minds of others. They do.

Johnny Stiletto · Dec 12, 2010

If you guys want Jon to go over the pros of gun control with you, I wouldn't hold your breath. I doubt he is as pro gun control as many of you seem to think. But what do I know? I say we welcome him instead! It's too bad it's 112 days until his next birthday. What a great opportunity it would be to send him a nice card! Just don't waste your time sending him any of those neat-o WCI stickers or window decals.

eye95 · Dec 12, 2010

Johnny Stiletto said:
If you guys want Jon to go over the pros of gun control with you, I wouldn't hold your breath. I doubt he is as pro gun control as many of you seem to think. But what do I know? I say we welcome him instead! It's too bad it's 112 days until his next birthday. What a great opportunity it would be to send him a nice card! Just don't waste your time sending him any of those neat-o WCI stickers or window decals.

His profile claims he is. So either he is or he is a liar. Take your pick.

He could well be someone else with a grudge, pretending to be an anti. However, without proof of that, I will only deal with what he has actually done. It hasn't been inspiring, but that is not cause for banning, just wariness.

LR Yote 312 · Dec 12, 2010

Wow,...Someone should seriously consider decaf.

LR Yote

Police shootings and justice

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

Regular Member

Regular Member

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

Banned

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member