Police in milwaukee shoot an armed suspect who was fleeing ftom them and people protest and riot against it

Police say a Milwaukee officer has shot and killed an armed man during a foot chase.

Capt. Mark Stanmeyer says officers stopped a car with two people inside Saturday. He says the pair got out of the car and ran and that the officers chased them.

He says a 23-year-old man who was one of the people fleeing was armed with a handgun and was shot by an officer during the pursuit. The man's name wasn't immediately released.

Stanmeyer says the man died at the scene. He says the handgun was determined to be stolen.



http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-milwaukee-officer-hit-brick-shooting-aftermath-41367976



Looks like the protesters like having armed criminals on the streets and don't want the police to do anything about it.

Do the locals really think the police shouldn't be dealing with armed criminals on their streets...?


I'm sure they would be protesting if police didn't bother dealing with armed criminals...!

Generally we expect police only to shoot as a last resort.

Police are well within their rights to shoot armed criminals who have been told to stop and surrender but who then choose to try to escape.

Tommy Monk wrote:Police are well within their rights to shoot armed criminals who have been told to stop and surrender but who then choose to try to escape.

Not in this country. I remind you, this happened in Wisconsin. Reasonable force is allowable only when your life or the life of another is threatened.

The cop wore a body camera.  Look to whether the police release the clip of the incident, then you'll know.

Fear for public safety is reason to shoot.


An armed criminal is certainly a danger to police and public when they are trying to escape from arrest.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Fear for public safety is reason to shoot.

An armed criminal is certainly a danger to police and public when they are trying to escape from arrest.

Not really.  Merely because a fleeing suspect has a firearm in his possession does not mean he is threatening to use it.  He might have a fingernail file in his pocket too, which he uses for his fingernails and not as a stabbing weapon.  Assumptions do not replace facts.

We'll wait to see if the Milwaukee Police Department releases the clip.

Stolen gun is a felony.


Armed and dangerous.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Police are well within their rights to shoot armed criminals who have been told to stop and surrender but who then choose to try to escape.

Not in this country.  I remind you, this happened in Wisconsin.  Reasonable force is allowable only when your life or the life of another is threatened.

The cop wore a body camera.  Look to whether the police release the clip of the incident, then you'll know.

NOR in this country, either...

Tommy really doesn't have a clue..

Quill is wrong.

Tommy Monk wrote:Stolen gun is a felony.

Armed and dangerous.

But, not necessarily a clear and present threat. Under Wisconsin law 939.48, if attack is provoked, self defense may only be used if reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm. If attack is provoked deadly force only allowed if all other reasonable means of avoidance exhausted.

That is general law for public self defence...

Same law.

"At common law, the fleeing felon rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight."

Tommy Monk wrote:"At common law, the fleeing felon rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight."

Only if he is an immanent danger to oneself or a 3rd-party.

But common law only applies to civil actions.

He didn't have a stolen gun on him to tickle people with...

Tommy Monk wrote:
He didn't have a stolen gun on him to tickle people with...

Or, he could have been an avid sportsman. There's lots of speculation to be had.  That's why the law requires specific facts leading to clear conclusions.

Whether this was a wrongful shooting or not has to be properly investigated and condemned if it was.
What is not acceptable is the response of the mob that has taken to the streets rioting, commiting violence and criminal damage and it should be completley condemned.

This is the problem I keep speaking of. Where news of a shooting is spread on social media and as bad as some white cops hold a sterotype and do discriminate against African Americans. We see exactly the same prejudice and sterotype being applied also by some African Americans towards the Police

Thus the problem in the US escalates continiously in how any such incident is hypd up into a frenzy of hate. The same principle applies, that African Americans should not be viwed with prejudice with a guilt by association based off some who commit crime. With again the same that the Police should not be viewed with prejudice with guilt by association off when some Police officers kill.

Demonstration is an acceptable and legal means of redressing rights in the US.  It is protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the highest law in the land.

The fact he had a stolen gun would raise the likelyhood of him being a serious danger to police and public.

Didge wrote:Whether this was a wrongful shooting or not has to be properly investigated and condemned if it was.
What is not acceptable is the response of the mob that has taken to the streets rioting, commiting violence and criminal damage and it should be completley condemned.

This is the problem I keep speaking of. Where news of a shooting is spread on social media and as bad as some white cops hold a sterotype and do discriminate against African Americans. We see exactly the same prejudice and sterotype being applied also by some African Americans towards the Police

Thus the problem in the US escalates continiously in how any such incident is hypd up into a frenzy of hate. The same principle applies, that African Americans should not be viwed with prejudice with a guilt by association based off some who commit crime. With again the same that the Police should not be viewed with prejudice with guilt by association off when some Police officers kill.

Quite right Didge... the violent mob response is dispicable.

Original Quill wrote:Demonstration is an acceptable and legal means of redressing rights in the US.  It is protected by the First Amendment, the highest law in the land.

Does this sound like a demonstration to you?


One officer was hit in the head by a brick thrown through a police car window.
A petrol station was among a number of businesses set on fire, while arsonists also targeted an empty police vehicle.
Authorities said firefighters were initially unable to tackle the blazes because of gunfire.
Mayor Tom Barrett had called on parents of children at the scene of the protests to "get them home right now".

Alderman Ashanti Hamilton said: "Our city is in turmoil tonight."
He pledged to make the circumstances of the shooting public and urged people to "allow the process to work".
At least three people have been arrested in connection with the unrest.
The owner of the petrol station has blamed outsiders for the violence that destroyed his business and said the area was usually peaceful.

http://news.sky.com/story/milwaukee-deadly-police-shooting-sparks-violent-unrest-in-us-city-10536095


Demonstrations are fine, violence and criminal damage is not

Tommy Monk wrote:
The fact he had a stolen gun would raise the likelyhood of him being a serious danger to police and public.

Maybe, maybe not. One doesn't handle incidents of homicide with legal presumptions. The law requires specific facts.

Let's see what the body camera reveals.

Original Quill wrote:Demonstration is an acceptable and legal means of redressing rights in the US.  It is protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the highest law in the land.

The rioting mob were not staging acceptable demonstration.

didge wrote:Does this sound like a demonstration to you?

Yes... I went to Berkeley, remember?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Demonstration is an acceptable and legal means of redressing rights in the US.  It is protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the highest law in the land.

The rioting mob were not staging acceptable demonstration.

That's one view. It's a tough case to make. The Constitution protects demonstrations to communicate grievances to the government.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
The fact he had a stolen gun would raise the likelyhood of him being a serious danger to police and public.

Maybe, maybe not.  One doesn't handle incidents of homicide with legal presumptions.  The law requires specific facts.

Let's see what the body camera reveals.

OK... so it's much more likely that he was a nice young innocent boy who just happened to find this gun and was on his way to the police station to hand it in when he heard his mum calling him in for dinner and was just running home for his supper...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Maybe, maybe not.  One doesn't handle incidents of homicide with legal presumptions.  The law requires specific facts.

Let's see what the body camera reveals.

OK... so it's much more likely that he was a nice young innocent boy who just happened to find this gun and was on his way to the police station to hand it in when he heard his mum calling him in for dinner and was just running home for his supper...!?

Possibly. But possibilities are just speculations in different clothing. A court will focus on facts.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:Does this sound like a demonstration to you?

Yes...  I went to Berkeley, remember?  

What has that got to do with anything?
Did you take your first steps then or were you only just learning to crawl?

Again the point still stands, are you claiming criminal damage and violence is now demonstrating and thus justifying the inoocent people and their properties being unlawfully targetded?


It may have started as a demonstration and was takn over by rioters who have now made a mockery of demo, making it meaningless

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:Does this sound like a demonstration to you?

Yes...  I went to Berkeley, remember?  

Ahhh, those not around in the 60s wouldn't know about Berkeley then.


BERKELEY RIOTS 1969 "Battle for People's Park" California 41 images Created 11 Apr 2012
Today's Occupy Movement has made me revisit my early photographs from the 1969 "People's Park" Occupation and subsequent riots in Berkeley California.

Retrospectively, it can been seen as one of the first Occupy Movements and is remembered as a symbol of hope for the free-thinkers; a rare political victory for the ordinary person against the corporate State.

The occupation began in June 1969 when students and local people of Berkeley, inspired by the Free Speech and Anti-Authoritarian movements and angered by the Vietnam War, took their initiative and occupied a piece of land belonging to the state owned University of California in Berkeley.
The University had purchased the land in 1966. They demolished residential housing and planned to build a car park and student dorms. They ran out of money however and left the land vacant for two years while committees dithered about its future use. It became a dumping ground and an eyesore to the local community.

Students and local people drew up their own plans for turning the derelict land into a much needed park and open space for the people. Their own committee approved the plans but the University stalled. Tired of waiting for yet more delays, assessments and permissions, the people took action. Hundreds turned up to occupy and work on the land. Contributions of money, food, shrubs, playground equipment etc. were donated by local shops. On the derelict site there was non-stop clearing, digging and planting and free food was available for all. The park was alive with rebellion, energy and hope.

The University was taking a relatively soft line and promised the Park Committee that they would give them 3 weeks to pull together a detailed proposal for the future of the land. However, one week later, Ronald Reagan who was then the governor of California stepped in. On his election in 1966, he had promised to clamp down on student protests and anti-war demonstrators. He called the Berkeley campus "a haven for communist sympathizers, protesters and sex deviants." He considered the creation of the park a direct leftist challenge to the property rights of the university, and took it as an opportunity to fulfill his campaign promise. (This hard line taken against the protesters ended up contributing to his Presidential election a few years later.)

At 4AM on what became known as "Bloody Thursday", 250 Highway patrol and Berkeley police officers took over the park. They cleared an 8 block area around the site and began constructing an 8 ft. high perimeter fence.
About 6,000 protesters turned up that day. Anger grew and the police retaliated with tear gas and shotguns. James Rector (a bystander)was killed, another man was blinded and 123 people were hospitalised. By the evening Governor Reagan had called in the National Guard and banned public assembly. The town was completely taken over by soldiers with metal helmets and rifles and bayonets.
Page 2 of 2

View: 25 | All

• 
  145708Peoples_Park.jpg
  
• 
  145711Peoples_Park.jpg
  
• 
  145714Peoples_Park.jpg
  
• 
  145713Peoples_Park.jpg
  
• 
  145666Peoples_Park.jpg
  
• 
  145724Peoples_Park.jpg
  
• 
  145691Peoples_Park.jpg
  
• 
  10052.jpg
  
• 
  145751California.jpg
  
• 
  145676Peoples_Park.jpg
  
• 
  145682Peoples_Park.jpg
  
• 
  145671Peoples_Park.jpg
  
• 
  145694Peoples_Park.jpg
  
• 
  145799BPeoples_Park.jpg
  
• 
  145706Peoples_Park.jpg
  
• 
  145786Peoples_park.jpg
  

http://wiedel.photoshelter.com/gallery/1969-BERKELEY-RIOTS-Peoples-Park-California/G0000r_Fe.kdWvaU/1

So more deflections to the point on violence and criminal damage.

Some of us know far more history. That the previous poster can never ever hope to posses even if she lived a thousand life times.

Being able to search on google and post up some history most of us know, is still evading and missing the points made

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:Does this sound like a demonstration to you?

Yes...  I went to Berkeley, remember?  

I know when we were protesting Vietnam we took inspiration from Berkeley and the way they wouldn't be stopped.   Berkeley protested about every injustice and stood tall.   Seems to me students have become wimps these days and let the establishment ride over them.   Mind you, they are probably thinking of their career prospects, nobody gave a shit then, because jobs were 2 a penny and stoppig the War and the Civil Rights Movement was so much more important than individual worries.

And the left do what they do best in despration to deflect the points on those rioting, which Quill seems to think is demonstrating.

Again there was a demonstration where then this is hijacked clearly by those intent on hate, no better than any person who guns someone down unlawfully, whether they are Police of not. One action does not excuse the other. Even more when this has happened again off poor sterotypes and prejudice that just continues to be fueled and escalated by whites and blacks on social media. Continuing to increase the eventual risk of an all out explosion in the US of state by state violence.

Evening Quill, just talking about demonstrations lol

seems to me that there is a difference between protest/demonstration and RIOT

sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes...  I went to Berkeley, remember?  

I know when we were protesting Vietnam we took inspiration from Berkeley and the way they wouldn't be stopped.   Berkeley protested about every injustice and stood tall.   Seems to me students have become wimps these days and let the establishment ride over them.   Mind you, they are probably thinking of their career prospects, nobody gave a shit then, because jobs were 2 a penny and stoppig the War and the Civil Rights Movement was so much more important than individual worries.

Demonstration is a form of speaking to your government.  But that function takes the typical left/right split.  Remember, RW'rs are authoritarian and, when you get down to it, do not believe fully in democracy.  LW'rs are the ones who use demonstrations to address specific issues toward their representatives.

Any given instance is going to follow this template, but with parochial and situational texture.  Since the RW is inevitably in opposition, they provide the narrative.  If it involves blacks or ethnics, it is inevitably rowdy and lawless in RW eyes.  If it involves students, it is thoughtful but unnecessary in RW eyes.  Students are overcoddled, they argue, and when they get a job they'll straighten out.  If it involves women, they are all lesbians and misfits in RW eyes.  They need to get laid, and then they'll be right as rain.

Not only did I attend Berkeley, but Ronald Reagan was governor of California at the time.  I've heard it all, believe me.

Oh I know, conform, kowtow, do as you are told, surrender to the establishment, kneel and be punished for thinking.  Yep, get it here, hell, even get it on here.   The RW hate people who think for themselves and won't bow to authority.

whereas, of course the left think smash and burn is a valid political tool

Doubless this armed thug will be a L/W hero

Over here if the blacks want a new tv,trainers ect, any protest brings them out with a chance of a good riot to burn, rob and fight the police, any low life white scum will join in.

Lord Foul wrote:whereas, of course the left think smash and burn is a valid political tool

Of course smash and burn is a valid political tool.



If not for smash and burn, everybody would be Canada.

nicko wrote:Over here if the blacks want a new tv,trainers ect,   any protest  brings them out with a chance of a good riot to burn, rob and fight the police, any low life white scum will join in.

So you're saying that in the UK, black people and low-life white scum are pretty much the same thing?

WOW.

sassy wrote:Oh I know, conform, kowtow, do as you are told, surrender to the establishment, kneel and be punished for thinking.  Yep, get it here, hell, even get it on here.   The RW hate people who think for themselves and won't bow to authority.

That describes what it was like under Labour here...

Hoping to be part of the solution, while promoting a unified community, dozens of volunteers came out Sunday morning in Milwaukee to help clean up after Saturday’s riots left several businesses burned.

The Coalition for Justice led a prayer vigil in the Wisconsin Sherman Park neighborhood and, afterward, participants young and old picked up bags and gloves to clear the debris and ashes around a gas station, beauty store, bank and surrounding buildings.
“We need to continue to love and inspire people with an atmosphere that changes the way they look at things,” said Nate Hamilton, one of the volunteers.

The riot was sparked by the death of a youth who tried to shoot police officers with a stolen gun. The youth’s father later exonerated police for their actions and blamed himself for not being a proper role model for his son.

http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/community-unites-clean-neighborhood-milwaukee-riots-watch/

If a person flees with a stolen gun, it's reasonable to assume that he's dangerous and might use it, yes?

Good News Network wrote:The riot was sparked by the death of a youth who tried to shoot police officers with a stolen gun.

Now there was a gunfight? Why haven't the Milwaukee papers picked up on this?

Milwaukee Journal Sentinal wrote:Sylville Smith, 23, was fatally shot after he refused to drop a gun, which was loaded with 23 rounds, police said.

Raggamuffin wrote:If a person flees with a stolen gun, it's reasonable to assume that he's dangerous and might use it, yes?

I would say so... he didn't have it for tickling people with... and he wasn't on his way to the police station to hand it in having just found it...


And it says in article of Didge's latest post that he was trying to shoot the police with it!!!

Raggamuffin wrote:If a person flees with a stolen gun, it's reasonable to assume that he's dangerous and might use it, yes?

That's what we've been saying. But the NRA opposes any attempt to take away people's guns.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If a person flees with a stolen gun, it's reasonable to assume that he's dangerous and might use it, yes?

That's what we've been saying.  But the NRA opposes any attempt to take away people's guns.

Not quite Quill... it's what I've been saying... you were trying to argue otherwise...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's what we've been saying.  But the NRA opposes any attempt to take away people's guns.

Not quite Quill... it's what I've been saying... you were trying to argue otherwise...

Meh...I'm ambivalent on gun control. In Arizona I frequently sported a .45 when out in the canyons. But in Milwaukee, I don't know.