I think the correct description is the one in the small print, armed.
Here's the linked article:
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin activated the Wisconsin National Guard on Sunday to assist local law enforcement following a night of violence in Milwaukee that began hours after a police officer fatally shot a fleeing armed man there.Boldface added.
I guess "unarmed" is the narrative.
UPDATED: The front page has this now:
I'm not saying I get results. I think the update happened because Governor Walker's action changed the most important news for this story.
Posts
143 comments:
Is this another post where the theme is that the headline was not written by the person who wrote the article?
Really, somebody needs to be shot for this kind of thing, armed or unarmed. It's just too damned much.
"All the news that's fitted to print"
It's just too damned much.
Agree. They are beyond even trying now. They are deliberately invoking hubris.
Is this another post where the theme is that the headline was not written by the person who even read the article?
There, fixed it for you. No, don't thank me. It's merely doing my civic duty.
The NYT should be culpable for any rioting/looting that occurs as a result of their headline.
Good catch, Professor Althouse. (And thank you for reading -- closely and carefully, obviously -- the New York Times so that I don't have to.)
It is reflexive now. "Unarmed black man" is like hitting a single key on a keyboard.
The same thing occurred when I was with friends having cocktails and talking about the Olympics. Someone was talking about the first black swimmer to medal in an individual event. Someone else used the term "African-American" and then someone else used the term "African-American" to describe a black athlete from another country; ergo, not "American" at all. At which time I drew the conversation short, to review terminology.
Journalistic malpractice.
Good thing the fine folks of Milwaukee just re elected DA Chisholm. Looks like this guy should have been locked up all along, but I will guess he got a deferral from the DA's office. I mean. Being charged in a shooting and then again with witness intimidation for that same shooting is not a big deal, right?
We get the government we deserve
All these double amputees causing all this trouble. We need a crash program to fit them all with prostheses.
And Morning Joe will spend an hour tomorrow wailing about how Trump is threatening to pull the credentials of the New York times.
That's loathsome. Some of my Greek relatives complain about getting firebombed out of Detroit, losing their businesses and homes, etc. I guess it's someone else's turn now. Can't say I feel sorry for the Arab and Asian business owners in these communities though.
This is the worst kind of journalistic malpractice, where what is printed carries forward a narrative that is known to inflame people and cause violence and also great mental distress.
But I'm still waiting for the whole story. I think — this isn't official legal advice — that our open-carry law makes it okay for a person to be armed. And the police need more of a reason to shoot somebody than that he's fleeing. So the fact that the man was armed and fleeing doesn't seem to be enough of an explanation.
Headline triggers.
William said...All these double amputees causing all this trouble. We need a crash program to fit them all with prostheses.
You'll get no quarrel from Bobby Quarles. It was justified.
Althouse gets results!
Thank you, Black Lives Matter, for again making it possible to people to show their anger at the Man by breaking into a store and carrying away an armload of hair extensions.
https://twitter.com/Cameron_Gray/status/764716134348140544
Ann Althouse said...This is the worst kind of journalistic malpractice, where what is printed carries forward a narrative that is known to inflame people and cause violence and also great mental distress.
Aren't they ethically obliged to print a correction? It seems like they've made themselves the story now and have forced the issue of whether he was armed.
I'm sure Barry will set us straight when he hears about this on the news.
@AA And the police need more of a reason to shoot somebody than that he's fleeing.
Are you saying that, when police warn, 'Stop, or I'll shoot!', they don't have the legal authority to do so?
The Albuqueque Morning Democrat said the young man was carrying a stolen gun and shot at the officers who then returned fire.
@Darleen: Hairs to the civil rights legacy!
In the absence of principles, the narrative becomes confused and winding.
Off topic, or is it?
Caught the last part of Claire McCaskill on Fox News Sunday. This woman is such a liar, but she is not a good liar.
This time she managed to say that Donald Trump's proposed economic policies are what brought us to the terrible position we are in now, while Hillary! promises to be an agent for change.
She also blamed the ISIS and Syria debacles on Trump's good friend, Mr. Putin, and I just thought, "Well, Trump is not the one who calls Putin by his first name!"
Reports are the dead guy was shot in the chest and arm...which means he stopped the "fleeing" and turned around.
Also, he was a gangbanger of somesort. His cousin is calling for "a gallon of blood" from every LEO.
Really upstanding, sober citizen, that.
LEO was wearing a body cam...not that facts will matter to the BLM or the looters.
"This is the worst kind of journalistic malpractice, where what is printed carries forward a narrative that is known to inflame people and cause violence and also great mental distress."
Really? Someone reading the NYT online is going to be inflamed enough to cause violence? Well, I suppose. They did correct it, but offered no statement of error.
How does a fleeing man get shot in the chest?
The real story is the targeting of white people by rioters. BLM is a domestic hate group. Quibble all you want about a headline title but look the other way on the real story. Soon the targets will include news reporters, professors and politicians because they are white also. Enjoy all the enlightenment and irony of hate crimes being permitted and ignored. It will soon happen to you.
Police match wits with unarmed black man.
"roll hood on her"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AButkuQPpNs
BLM isn't a hate group so much as a media-narrative group. It's not there for blacks.
The young man also was out on bail from an earlier case involving guns and an attempted witness intimidation charge related to that case.
A quick check of ccap shows a healthy trail of destruction for a 23 year old. Includes carrying a concealed weapon, 1st deg reckless end safety, witness intimidation, multiple driving infractions and a large money judgement to insurance co.
Seems like he was just trying to find himself.
The New York Times should suffer in some way.
@Darleen: That last video could have been staged by Trump people.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
This is the worst kind of journalistic malpractice, where what is printed carries forward a narrative that is known to inflame people and cause violence and also great mental distress.
But I'm still waiting for the whole story. I think — this isn't official legal advice — that our open-carry law makes it okay for a person to be armed. And the police need more of a reason to shoot somebody than that he's fleeing. So the fact that the man was armed and fleeing doesn't seem to be enough of an explanation.
Trump has been saying he wants to change the laws regarding falsehoods in the Press.
I'm not really sure what the laws are right now, except that our 1st amendment guarantees freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
But does it guarantee freedom to spread lies and falsehoods?
I'm very sympathetic to this argument by Trump. I've seen the media get away with too many lies based off of, "unnamed sources".
How does a fleeing man get shot in the chest?
The same thing happened to Michael Brown and was never explained by BLM. It's weird how they're related.
Drudge headline: "Whites Hunted for Beatdowns"
Obama (2009-2016)= Racial healing!!!
Regarding my post on McCaskill above, Chris Wallace failed to call her on these remarkable statements. So, journalistic malpractice? Oh, yeah!
"They are beyond even trying now. They are deliberately invoking hubris." Corollary to the Tushnet con law approach: when we progs are in charge, we don't have to care and can just stuff it down their throats. Lies, falsehood, propaganda, "journalistic malpractice" as those of old-fashioned tender feelings might call it--makes no difference. Anything for the cause, the cause above anything.
"A quick check of ccap shows a healthy trail of destruction for a 23 year old." BLM picks its heroes carefully. Corollary to the corollary: progs don't have to pretend to prefer virtue anymore. They can celebrate destructive thuggishness with impunity, and they do, as long as the violence can be given a revolutionary spin.
Neither the small print nor the edit matter -- the "unarmed" narrative has been established.
All those BLM hoods and thugs read the paper and then looted beauty shops. If the headline had been correct they would have stayed home and done the crossword puzzle.
The new mast head for the New York Times will be"
TELL A LIE OFTEN ENOUGH AND IT BECOMES THE TRUTH.
In order to advance the interests of the Democratic party, there's been a five year campaign to teach black people to hat the police and hate white people in general.
It started with "Trayvon" and doctored 911 tapes. It continued with "Hands up, don't shoot". This is just more of the same.
And guess what?
It's working.
Carlos Slim: the E is /s/i/l/e/n/t/ invisible.
The media are such narrative driven hacks.
Good for you -ANN! right on.
"Forget it Jake, it's Milwaukee"
I wonder how long it's been since they had anybody but a Democrat in the Mayors office. Anybody?
1908, according to the papers.
Douthat is killing it over at the NYT. In general I avoid him because he's weak tea. I especially avoided the headline about Playboy President because: who cares?
But, Hot Air linked to it so I gave in.
I loved the unkind, funny and at least somewhat true attacks in there, e.g.:
"The men’s sexual revolution, in which freedom meant freedom to take your pleasure while women took the pill, is still a potent force, and not only in the halls of Fox News. From Hollywood and college campuses to rock concert backstages and Bill Clinton’s political operation, it has persisted as a pervasive but unspoken philosophy in precincts officially committed to cultural liberalism and sexual equality."
And
"Then finally, among men who were promised pliant centerfolds and ended up single with only high-speed internet to comfort them, the men’s sexual revolution has curdled into a toxic subculture, resentful of female empowerment in all its forms.
This is where you find Trump’s strongest (and, yes, strangest) fans. He’s become the Daddy Alpha for every alpha-aspiring beta male, whose mix of moral liberation and misogyny keeps the Ring-a-Ding-Ding dream alive."
And, Ross's shoots at JFK.
He also aims and hits the alt-right losers.
Anywho, sorry for interrupting the con-fussing about an NYT headline. Carry on.
"The Milwaukee police officer who fatally shot an armed suspect Saturday is black, sources have told the Journal Sentinel." Uh, oh; there goes The Narrative?
Hoping Barack the Humble interrupts his golf game and visits Milwaukee tomorrow for a walk through. Maybe sprinkle some of that Peace Prize crap around.
I've been looking around the internet and have come across several other examples where the headline for this story says 'unarmed black man' and the text says 'armed'. This is NO ACCIDENT AND NO COINCIDENCE!
Mostly Peaceful Protests After Police Shoot Mostly Unarmed Man
Mock,
I'm sure you realize that this was not a headline that said "black." Anywho, thanks for telling us about, by linking, all the "unarmed black man" headlines where the text says "armed". Carry on.
@mockturtle
"Are you saying that, when police warn, 'Stop, or I'll shoot!', they don't have the legal authority to do so?"
They may or may not, depending on whether the use of deadly force appears necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death. No, the police don't have the legal authority to use deadly force merely to effect a detention or to prevent escape.
http://www.wisn.com/news/1-dead-in-officerinvolved-shooting/41190354
Flynn said the video shows a brief chase, the suspect being confronted by the officer and the that the suspect had a gun in his hand. He said there is no evidence the suspect fired a shot.
...
Flynn said Sunday that the officer who shot Smith is African-American.
Here's one, PB&J:
https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/suite
In other news, the journal sentinel reports that 5 men were killed in 3 separate shootings late friday into saturday.
One woman interviewed at the scene of the riot claimed the unrest was caused by years of black people being victimized by the police.
"They have been taking our folks for too long,” she said. “This is a rights issue.”
And so it goes
Here's another:
http://tmzhiphop.com/6-dead-as-chaos-breaks-out-in-milwaukee-after-unarmed-black-man-shot-by-police/
I expect upon further review that the cop will be found to be a white african-american.
I spend a lot of time in Milwaukee. Work and play. The Theater District by City Hall is great; the 3rd Ward, Brady Street bars, festivals by the lake, Shorewood, Old World 3rd Street, and even Bayview where the hipsters hang are all a lot of fun.
It's sad to watch the Democrats drive the city into the ground. The Mayor, City Council, and the County Board are all morons. There are large parts of the city that are lost. Neighborhoods where my Grandparents grew up are now ghettos. Go one block north of Wisconsin Ave and 23rd by the Ambassador Hotel, and you are no longer safe. Thats less than a mile from the Marquette Campus.
Looks like we'll be spending more time in Oconomowoc.
I blame Madison libtards.
Thank you mockturtle for making PB&J look like the educated fool he is.
Guns everywhere, making us safer, day after day.
@mockturtle: At least the violence was ginned up which is what somebody wanted.
Mock,
I couldn't get into the aol thing. But, the second link didn't seem like real news. What is tmzhiphop? Did you read the other stuff they post?
Anywho, if it's important for you to think that IT'S NO ACCIDENT (as you put it) that headlines from real news sources like the NYT include the word 'black' (even though they don't), go for it.
Whatever floats your boat.
@ARM. No fathers in the inner city - making us safer every day!!
Is the aol link some sort of blog? Do you need to be an AOLer to see it?
And thank you, PB&J for doubling down on stupidity. It's hard to believe that we three have something objective in common.
chick,
Can you open the mail.aol link? If so, can you confirm that that is a news website?
PBandJ:
He didn't say it was no accident they said 'black'. He said it was no accident they said 'unarmed' when the man was in fact armed. Have they ever made the opposite mistake? There have been quite a few cases of newspapers misreporting the party a politician belongs to, and they all seem to go the same way: calling George Wallace a Republican and Abraham Lincoln a Democrat. Notice a pattern? Maybe the reporters are just stupid and honestly think that all good things are on the left and all bad things on the right, maybe they like to slip in the occasional bald-faced lie, or maybe a bit of each, but there seems to be a pattern.
Mock et al must have been surprised to learn, from the news source that you think is worthy, that the gov is making human animal hybrids:
http://tmzhiphop.com/u-s-health-agency-gets-government-funding-for-human-animal-hybrids-study/
The correction for which you've been waiting. At the end of the "updated" article is this:
Correction: August 14, 2016
An earlier version of this article misspelled the surname of a Milwaukee alderman. He is Khalif J. Rainey, not Raney.
@Jelly: Desperately trying to switch the narrative?
PB&J, the AOL news source probably requires AOL membership, which I have. Why would I make up something like this? The other article is readily accessible. There was third one, too, but I see it has now been modified.
Doc W,
1) He is a she.
2) I just noticed that she threw in the word black for some reason. Obviously the headline was wrong.
Mock et al must have been surprised to learn, from the news source that you think is worthy, that the gov is making human animal hybrids:
I didn't say the news sources were 'worthy'. I don't deem the NYT to be worthy!
Mock,
If the other two are like the one I could get into, they're not articles. They're weirdos on the internet.
PBandJ:
So you seized on a wrong detail to ignore his/her (whatever: I don't care) point? Are you going to address the point, that these sort of error seem to all go one way, or just be a contemptible troll?
Even DJT wouldn't refer to tmzhiphop. Of course the Enquirer is totally legit.
Keep digging, Peanut.
@PB&J They're weirdos on the internet.
Just like you! :-)
Mock et al must have been surprised to learn, from the news source that you think is worthy, that the gov is making human animal hybrids:
Thats a bridge too far for a federal government that gave the University of Kentucky 175,000 to study the connection between cocaine and the sex habits of quail?
Doc W,
As I already stated, I completely agree w/ the fact that the NYT headline was wrong. Not that agreement is required, facts are facts.
Pretending that the wrong headline was wrong in some additional ways (e.g. thinking it included the word "black") is a factual error. Best to avoid making mistakes when pointing to the mistakes of others. Just sayin.
Gotta reprogram that macro.
Guns indeed.
Nobody seems to have learned the lesson - people who are secure and content don't buy guns, unless they are hobbyists, such as hunters, collectors and target shooters, and these are some of the most peaceful people on earth.
So why does the left insist on threatening people such that they run out and buy guns? The current administration has been the greatest gun sales organization in human history.
Seriously, if you make a website that latches on to the supposed credibility of TMZ, isn't it fair to ask WTF?
The more interesting question is WHY was it written this way?
On purpose?
So because someone made a mistake in stating their point, a mistake which did not affect the point in any way, you don't have to answer the main point, even when it's restated by someone else? Got it, you're just a dishonest asshole, no point in aiming any further rational arguments your way.
Doc W,
OK, I give in, I agree that the original NYT headline was a mistake. You finally pulled it out of me. You sure are clever.
PB&J, I did not say that the NYT headline said 'unarmed black man'. I stated that I had seen other articles that did. The commonality was the 'unarmed' part. You seem to be pursing some kind of personal vendetta here that I refuse to further indulge.
More and more unhappiness, more and more guns.
15 straight months of gun sales records.
And thats after a record- breaking decade.
Forget oil, gas, fracking - the way to have gotten rich in the age of Obama (other than having the correct friends) was guns and ammo.
And I agree with all the gun control people, this is not a good thing. Its a symptom of great stress, and the scale of this is incredible, 30-40 million people. Theres more semi-auto rifles sold, alone, over the last decade, than every army in the world put together.
Isn't the proper lesson here - BACK OFF?
Mock,
You commented that you saw the word "black" in some website called tmzhiphop and some mail.aol website and some other unlinked website. And, you declared that this was "NO ACCIDENT AND NO COINCIDENCE!"
Maybe you think that these three "articles" justified your all caps conclusion. But, imho it seems like you let three completely obscure corners of the internet work you up into an unjustified all caps lather.
To remind you what I responed to:
"I've been looking around the internet and have come across several other examples where the headline for this story says 'unarmed black man' and the text says 'armed'. This is NO ACCIDENT AND NO COINCIDENCE!"
More foul gas from PB&J, evading the point once again. For anyone else who cares, the point is that errors like this always seem to go one way. Newspapers never seem to say that an unarmed black-or-white-or-unspecified youth was armed, or claim Joe McCarthy was a Democrat or Hubert Humphrey was a Republican, but they quite frequently make utterly false statements that help the left and harm the right - rather like the way PB&J "argues".
Newspapers never seem to say that an unarmed black-or-white-or-unspecified youth was armed, or claim Joe McCarthy was a Democrat or Hubert Humphrey was a Republican, but they quite frequently make utterly false statements that help the left and harm the right.
You broke the code, you clever fellow! The odds that this is random has to be a kazillion to nothing.
Althouse: "But I'm still waiting for the whole story. I think — this isn't official legal advice — that our open-carry law makes it okay for a person to be armed. And the police need more of a reason to shoot somebody than that he's fleeing. So the fact that the man was armed and fleeing doesn't seem to be enough of an explanation."
You went to law school somewhere, didn't you? Yes they do need more of a reason to shoot a suspect than the suspect is fleeing. The United States Supreme Court has set this out explicitly, make one of your students look it up for you. From the brief accounts I have read, it sounds as if those conditions had been met prior to the police shooting this poor young man.
Let's all wait for more of the story, perhaps, before we jump on the police.
The study showed something like 85% of men in maximum security prisons had been raised in mom-alone families. Milwaukee, being a stronghold of Democratic/Socialism, has had forces working to destroy families for a long time. In the neighborhood of 70% of Black children in Milwaukee are raised in mom-alone homes. Maybe that is where the problem is, not in faulty policing.
FYI the newsroom editor writes the headline.
Guns everywhere, making us safer, day after day.
@ARM, they wouldn't make you safer since you don't seem likely to be intelligent enough to be trained in the safe use of firearms, don't seem wise enough to practice safe gun-handling at a range, and don't seem sensible enough enough to use a gun properly to defend yourself or people you love.
So please, whatever else you do, don't buy a gun.
PS: I'm assuming that there are people other than yourself you hold in affection, but I admit that not only is that unproven, but given the tone of your comments, unlikely.
"State Sen. Lena Taylor addressing crowd at BP, asking them to vote to make change."
Oh the irony is strong with this one.
http://www.opencarry.org/state-info-t-z/wisconsin/
You may not "open carry" in a vehicle.
If you transport a weapon in a vehicle, it must be unloaded and cased and the case placed out of reach of the occupants in the vehicle.
This is not how the weapons in these late cases were transported.
Ann Althouse said...
"This is the worst kind of journalistic malpractice, where what is printed carries forward a narrative that is known to inflame people and cause violence and also great mental distress."
The NYT is another group of people whose best outcome at this point is a trump victory.
This, however, seem to be much to complicated for the gentlemen and ladies of the press to comprehend, or even take notice of.
The residents of Milwaukee at this moment are showing everyone how thin the veil of civilization is. More and more black people do not respect the rule of law.
Just wait until the second amendment people join them.
The veneer of civilization is only, ever, a moment from exposure as a fraud. Achilles is precisely accurate that Milwaukee is witnessing the reality of the normal condition of man.
Many people think BLM chaos helps Trump. Perhaps.
But what it will do is increase support for a stronger, more powerful federal government if the middle class feels threatened and turn toward protection from on high.
God help us all.
The news reports that the mother of the deceased claims her son recently received a concealed carry permit. If true, he could have a loaded handgun in his vehicle in most situations. Also true, if you are running from the police with said handgun in your hand and the pursuing officer tells you to drop the weapon and you don't, then Darwins law kicks in. Thats it!
"This is the worst kind of journalistic malpractice, where what is printed carries forward a narrative that is known to inflame people and cause violence and also great mental distress."
It's fun to be in Althouse's head. A short lived NYT headline w/ a mismatched story and The New Yorker misrepresenting Rush's vitriol are big problems. One leads NYT readers to violence (even though it didn't) the other leads to....I'm not sure, but it's bad!
It's fun to see what is at the top of the concern list for a con-apologist lawprof in Madison.
Oh, and spending dough to look for old turtles is a big problem, too.
Althouse: "But I'm still waiting for the whole story. I think — this isn't official legal advice — that our open-carry law makes it okay for a person to be armed."
- If he was a felon (or convicted of certain misdemeanors involving violence) then he would be a prohibited person, and he would not be allowed to possess a firearm, openly or otherwise.
- Open carry means carried in a holster - in your hand is "brandishing", unless you are then currently responding to a credible threat.
- It's never legal to carry a gun you stole from someone else.
- Once you threaten someone with a gun (cop or otherwise), you can't just yell "take backsies" and run away.
Gun was reportedly stolen from Waukesha.
My check of ccap does not appear he is convicted felon. But has been charged with more than one. Apparently his witness intimidation worked like a charm.
"The charges were dismissed by prosecutors in November.
...
That charge was dismissed by prosecutors in September.
...
sentenced to serve one day in the House of Correction.
...
Prosecutors dismissed the charge in October."
"white supremacy" in 2016 == "international Jewry" in 1936.
An armed man who's fleeing is a threat to the community at large. Is this so difficult?
Legions of fact checkers! The paper of record!
Well so they claim; the NYT's highest and best use is as a bird cage liner.
Wisconsin apparently has some unfortunate language in their gun laws that confuse people.
Despite the brave statement in the state constitution, you are apparently supposed to get a "permit" from your local sheriff in order to transport a handgun in your car, though still subject to the provisions for being unloaded and locked awy in the trunk. It is a "shall issue" to anyone not a convicted felon, so they will look you straight in the eye and tell you it is not a violation of the state constitution or an "unconstitutional burden" on the 2nd Amendment, and it explains how such people as this one and the one last month got these "permits." It looks to be just a dodge enabling the state to keep a list of people likely to own handguns.
But these "permits" are not licenses to "carry concealed weapons" as understood in the rest of the country.
"The news reports that the mother of the deceased claims her son recently received a concealed carry permit. If true, he could have a loaded handgun in his vehicle in most situations."
And yet, above in the thread, somebody with knowledge of concealed carry laws and a link said the opposite.
Blogger Hagar said...
http://www.opencarry.org/state-info-t-z/wisconsin/
You may not "open carry" in a vehicle.
If you transport a weapon in a vehicle, it must be unloaded and cased and the case placed out of reach of the occupants in the vehicle.
This is not how the weapons in these late cases were transported.
8/14/16, 4:44 PM
Was the suspect aborted before or after he was disarmed?
But I'm still waiting for the whole story. I think — this isn't official legal advice — that our open-carry law makes it okay for a person to be armed.
It's difficult for me to believe it was legal for this particular person to be armed, given his rap sheet.
Or at least, it should not have been legal.
More PB&J wrongness: The article about mixing human and animal DNA, although accompanied with some outlandish photographs, is completely factual. This link is to National Pinko Radio, so he has to accept it as true.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/08/04/488387729/nih-plans-to-lift-ban-on-research-funds-for-part-human-part-animal-embryos
"And the police need more of a reason to shoot somebody than that he's fleeing."
Nah, that's good enough for me.
Google "Wisconsin gun laws."
There has to be some reason these street goons bother to get those "permits," but I don't understand it. Perhaps some Wisconsinite can tell us how it works on the ground. I am sure it s "complicated."
iqvoice,
I did notice that. But, I interpreted that, and many of the other things they post, as evidence that the website had a track record of purposefully sensationalizing news. Cons may hate the NYT, but surely you can see that they're at least a bit less sketchy than tmzhiphop. Right?
"The Milwaukee police officer who fatally shot an armed suspect Saturday is black, sources have told the Journal Sentinel." Uh, oh; there goes The Narrative?
Wishful thinking. The Narrative is not that individual white cops are out to get black people. The Narrative is that black people's lives are in peril because of "systemic" racism and the Culture of Guns caused by hillbillies, rednecks, and Y'allQaeda. Therefore, the race of the police officer isn't relevant because he is an operative of The System.
One thing is for sure; cons don't want to make it seem like the Milwaukee Co Sheriff's policing has been anything but brilliant.
I can't think of a con-media-star who is more persuasive than that guy.
W/ such a high profile con-media-star involved, this needs to end up looking great for Clarke. It's not certain that Fox et al hyping this situation as a scary out of control failure of law and order is good for Clarke. Sure you can try to blame the D Mayor, but it's hard to see how the Sheriff doesn't get any consideration. Presumably some of the buck for policing stops at the Sheriff's desk, if not what does he do (other than jabber about R policies on TV).
The NY Times is correct: The man who got shot was armed in one arm, but unarmed in the other arm.
The difference, PB&J, is that the NYT claims to be the paper of record when in reality they are just as shit as a tabloid. Walter Duranty, Jayson Blair, "white Hispanic", and now the unarmed-armed man. They suck ass.
"The news reports that the mother of the deceased claims her son recently received a concealed carry permit. If true, he could have a loaded handgun in his vehicle in most situations."
Claiming to have a concealed carry permit is not the same as actually having one. If he, indeed, had a concealed carry permit, the press would be all in to show what violent thugs concealed carry licensees are. Witness that they are not.
State of Wisconsin vs. Sylville Kwame Smith
Milwaukee County Case Number 2014CM002615
The defendant Sylville Kwame Smith was found guilty of the following charge(s) in this case.
Carry Concealed Weapon, a class A misdemeanor, Wisconsin Statutes 941.23(2).
Found guilty of a weapons violation.
Wisconsin DOJ CCW: Background Check & Criminal History Information:
"All information in CIB’s criminal history database is based on submission by police departments of arrest fingerprint cards. Wisconsin law enforcement agencies are required under §165.84(1) to submit arrest fingerprint cards for offenses designated in §165.83(2)(a)."
165.84(1) reads:
(2) The department shall:
(a) Obtain and file fingerprints, descriptions, photographs and any other available identifying data on persons who have been arrested or taken into custody in this state:
1. For an offense which is a felony or which would be a felony if committed by an adult.
2. For an offense which is a misdemeanor, which would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult or which is a violation of an ordinance, and the offense involves burglary tools, commercial gambling, dealing in gambling devices, contributing to the delinquency of a child, dealing in stolen property, controlled substances or controlled substance analogs under ch. 961, firearms, dangerous weapons, explosives, pandering, prostitution, sex offenses where children are victims, or worthless checks.
I'm willing to bet a significant sum he did NOT have a CCW permit, nor was he eligible for one.
I think this is a great example of the sudden (perhaps) lack of linkage between the content and what the headline writer thinks. I frankly don't know how the editors put up with this- It's happening in all papers. Maybe they don't have editors anymore.
The officer's video cam apparently shows the gun in the guy's hand. If that is true (and the Milwaukee mayor seems to have bought in to it), then the shoot was justified. Nothing more is needed. You do not draw down on the police. You don't have a gun in your hand around the police (except in a controlled situation - such as after telling a cop that you have a concealed carry permit, are armed, and he asks to see your firearm). There is no good reason that someone would have a gun in their hand after exiting their vehicle after a traffic stop. None. Which is why, if the deceased did have a gun in his hand at the time he was shot, the shoot was legally justified as self defense.
Live Stream: Unrest in Milwaukee - Milwaukee Riots (8/14/16)
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2016/08/live-stream-unrest-in-milwaukee.html
"PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
One thing is for sure; cons don't want to make it seem like the Milwaukee Co Sheriff's policing has been anything but brilliant. "
Milwaukee refers usually to the city, but there is a county of the same name in about the same place. The City of Milwaukee has a police department and Flynn is the Chief of Police (C.O.P.), and he is in charge of the police officers. Milwaukee County has a sheriff's department, and Sheriff Clarke is in charge of deputies. Why they have both is beyond my ken, and I am unable to explain their jurisdictional responsibilities. This shooting was done by officers under Chief Flynn.
PBJ,
...purposefully sensationalizing news. Cons may hate the NYT, but surely you can see that they're at least a bit less sketchy...
No, sir. What could be more 'purposefully sensational and sketchy' than saying in the headline that the dead man was unarmed?
@MTM
And I would agree it unlikely he had the CC permit his mother said he had which was why I added the qualifier "if true".
To your point about the press. A check of the status of Philando Castille, who was shot by a suburban St Paul officer during a traffic stop, and who it was claimed also had a concealed carry permit actually did have one. It seems that it becomes difficult to follow these stories when they seem to be happening more frequently, but its probably just that they are receiving much more attention.
Again, I do not think "concealed carry permit" in Wisconsin means what you would think it means.
I suspect the Democrats in Wisconsin have passed some laws to restrict gun ownership while having some sheen of not being directly unconstitutional - state or federal. The language for such statutes would necessarily be somewhat ambiguous and the street thugs and their lawyers have found a way to make it advantageous for them - at least in some situations. But they are not CCW permits.
I think it best to get info from the state itself re these things.
Everything you need is here:
https://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/conceal-carry/faq-concealed-carry
Including a faq the carrying of different types of weapons in vehicles
Even if the gun had been legally carried and not aimed/fired at officers, if he runs from police and they know he has it, that's probably by-the-book (police procedure) justified. If they killed him just for running and later found a gun on him, that's obviously* wrong. *[outside of crazy scenarios that are easy to generate but why bother]
Headline writing is no doubt a tough job, and they probably don't give you time to more than glance at what you are supposed to encapsulate in 8-10 words. But it shows how far gone you are that the default position in your brain is "police shoot unarmed man." Narrative, indeed.
Blogger PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
. . . Cons may hate the NYT, . . .
Liberals should hate it as well, because it lies to them in order to push an ideological agenda dreamed up by the ruling class.
@Hager - Reading the WI DoJ FAQ on concealed carry, WI gun laws anymore seem fairly standard. If you have a CCW permit, you can apparently carry concealed in the car, but if you don't, the gun must be visible if readily available (hopefully that doesn't apply in MT or ID, because I don't leave a firearm visible for obvious reasons). Interestingly, you can also carry a Taser concealed if you have a CCW.
@Graehl - the big question, if the guy had a CCW permit, was whether it was holstered (or in his waistband) at the time he was shot. If it was instead in his hand, tough luck. Of course, maybe the problem was that he did like other gang bangers do, concealing his gun in his waistband of baggy pants. Plenty of stories of guns falling out when they try to run that way from the cops. Cops apparently find that endlessly amusing (but something similar can happen to them with guns in ankle holsters). So, he may well have merely pulled it his gun out in order to run and not have it fall out. But if that was the case, it is still on the decedent - cops can't be expected to realize that was why the gun was (supposedly) in his hand. They have to assume that he meant to shoot the cop, and react accordingly. Some call this the Darwin Effect.
Should not the police be subject to a proportionate force standard in self-defense, as we are? Or is this the shoot the guy so he cannot cause trouble elsewhere theory at work? If cops can freely shoot guys running away - armed or not - perhaps this is one of the things that makes the land of the free not so much these days, it being noted that municipal police forces are a progressive era phenomenon in the US starting with Boston. Not excusing the wanton destruction of property in the least. The state at its various levels in the US has too much power, is all, as do its armed enforcers.
BKK, why shouldn't you be able to shoot people while trying to escape, or resisting arrest? Seriously, it seems like an excellent, obvious idea. With the obvious incentive to not run away and not to resist. If it were legal, and criminals knew it, they would comply better.
Post a Comment