This is happening right here in Madison, where the local citizenry can be presumed to feel twinges about tinges of sexism and racism in anybody's speech, and you can imagine why the Chief of Police wanted to cut any attachment to the utterer of the purportedly toxic words. But by chance — or not by chance — the person to be detached was previously protected when the sensitive citizens cried out about the gun violence, the police brutality visited upon the young — now dead — man.
What specifics do you need to unravel this complicated problem in Madison politics? Why was the man shot? Details here, but the short answer is that — in the police version of the story — the man grabbed for the police officer's gun. What did the email say? From the first link, quoting Madison Police Chief Noble Wray's complaint to the Police and Fire Commission, the police officer (Steven Heimsness) sent a message to another officer that read: "Sometimes they forget they are not in Africa anymore. The social mores are not the same." (Heimsness said he was writing about someone who was from Africa.) And, referring to "a Latina woman on the force," he wrote — to male officers — "Ay caramba" and "Jesus Christo."
There were also some references to violence:
"I should have blasted that guy with the knife through my window the other day. At least I would have got the weekend off" (from September 8, 2012)...The shooting that killed the man happened Nov. 9, 2012, take note.
... and "I'm ready to go on a shooting spree up in dispatch."
Posts
62 comments:
"I'm ready to go on a shooting spree up in dispatch."
That, alone, probably would be enough to get him fired.
Peter
"They're basically telling us if Heimsness makes a mistake on a computer and offends people there and is violent on a computer, that's unacceptable," Amelia said. "But it's okay for him to be, he can be trusted with firearms."
I'm beginning to believe most liberals are half-nuts.
PC gets you either way.
Live by the sword, get dissed by the sword.
I think he's really being fired for the shooting. Blaming the firing on something else keeps the city free from the responsibility.
The guy seems to lack verbal restraint. Perhaps he lacked trigger restraint also? But cops tend to defend their own when citizens get shot. Even in liberal Madison.
"The guy seems to lack verbal restraint."
I'd like to know a lot more about what all the officers were saying back and forth to each other.
If they all talk like that and the style of speech is a culture, then it's not fair to judge Heimsness outside of that context.
If he's like all the other officers, verbally, than there's little connection to the shooting incident. If he's different, the question arises why he was not weeded out earlier.
So logically, it doesn't make sense to fire him because of the speech. Right?
The Madison police want an impeccable record like the FBI has, so maybe they need to get rid of a loose cannon.
Once again, it appears that the gun control required in this country is to take guns away from the police.
Meh; the e-mail sounds like it could have been written by Icepick, Cedarford, or Roger J as evidenced by their comments in the George Zimmermann thread yesterday afternoon.
I'm the right cop for the wrong job," and "No witnesses, no problem."
Just another example of our public sector "heros" in action.
here the local citizenry can be presumed to feel twinges about tinges of sexism and racism in anybody's speech,
Ah yes, a bunch of white liberals call other white liberals "racist"
That's funny. What is the black population in Madison, anyway, 1.9%?
That's not cop logic, Ann. In cop logic the unpardonable sin is to break with the force. Not to back the cop after the shooting flirts with breaking the prime directive. Firing him for indiscreet language that brings the department into disrepute and even disrespects another officer is completely orthodox.
In every department there are those who will kill a civilian for disrespecting them if a plausible excuse is also offered. Grabbed my gun. Furtive movement. Put the car in reverse.
You take your life in your hands when you do not obey. With an increasing number of cops it's just that simple. So long as they're backed up be supervision and the union in every single case it can only get worse.
"What is the black population in Madison, anyway, 1.9%?"
7.3%
@Eustace Yes, but my key question is was his talk different from the culture of the rest of the place. That will have to come out. Think about the logic in that context.
If he's not different from the others, firing only him isn't the solution. It's scapegoating or targeting him for some extraneous reason.
But if he is a big outlier, talking like that, where does the logic lead when we think about what the police dept knew about him before the shooting? What went into the investigation of the shooting?
Something doesn't add up.
There was an incident on Long Island NY that I thought was very telling regarding the relationship between police and citizenry. There was a house robbery conducted by a single armed man. He took a female college student in the house as a hostage and had a gun at her head when a police officer arrived. The gunman reportedly then turned his gun towards the police officer who promptly shot both the gunman and the victim.
The cop in question is presumably well trained to deal with hostage situations and is unquestionably paid very handsomely to compensate for any risks associated with his job. Yet, the minute his own life is at risk, he panics and kills an innocent girl. Understandably the local citizenry are not happy. They seem to fail to understand what panicky cowards most people are, either in uniform or just regular folks.
AReasonableMan said...
The cop in question is presumably well trained to deal with hostage situations and is unquestionably paid very handsomely to compensate for any risks associated with his job
That is a preposterous assertion. You don't have any understanding of the tactical situations police are trained for.
Ann, it seems most likely to me that the shooting was a stench in the nostrils of the chief, who then took the next plausible excuse to pull the trigger on the cop same as the cop did on the kid he shot. He was scapegoated and the chief, by taking the cowardly route, passed on the opportunity to do very much real good. A broader logical context seems lacking, as you say. Good riddance to both, if the chief goes. Not that small ball department politics will change anything fundamental.
Given the meager evidence available at the links, I think the shooting must be considered separately from the other behaviors.
The sexist/ racist slant seems odd since the victim was a white male.
The comments possibly suggesting an officer out of control might be very relevant, but the context (culture) would need to be evaluated carefully.
The incident also seems to invite a fair amount of ass covering, or at least the potential for political enemies to cry foul. The Chief might be screwed. The officer, too. The PC crowd will want scalps--I know that's racist.
The article you refer to does not mention the circumstances of the shooting.
Was the victim threatening someone with a deadly weapon or so perceived by the officer? If he was, any cop would be damned or possibly dead if he or she did not stop him, and the surest way to stop someone from threatening someone else with a deadly weapon is to shoot him.
It is these circumstances that cause cops to close ranks. Every cop knows that in such a situation he will get help from no one but a fellow cop. That is just the way it is. That is why each and every police shooting should be investigated by civilians from outside the force.
That is also why society cannot allow people who exercise such blatant disrespect for others to have a badge and a gun. The chief should have fired him.
On the other hand, have you ever tried to fire a public employee? Any public manager who tries to fire a subordinate public employee is going to spend most of his or her time dealing with the case, and has a good chance of losing after months of effort.
I am all but certain, after the last few days of comments, that "AReasonableMan" is in fact a woman.
Yet, the minute his own life is at risk, he panics and kills an innocent girl. Understandably the local citizenry are not happy. They seem to fail to understand what panicky cowards most people are, either in uniform or just regular folks.
It would be beyond hysterical to watch an idiotic arm chair quarterback like you perform in this situation.
Birkel said...
I am all but certain, after the last few days of comments, that "AReasonableMan" is in fact a woman.
I am all but certain, after this comment, that Birkel is in fact a faggot.
^^^ Ah, the tolerant left...
Your hetero-normative comment notwithstanding...
No, scratch that.
That comment further solidifies my opinion that you are a woman.
(I will leave aside your bigotry about which I care so little.)
AReasonableMan said...
I am all but certain, after this comment, that Birkel is in fact a faggot.
Notice how the truth hurts.
Your reaction is funny, little girl
AReasonableMan said...
Birkel said...
I am all but certain, after the last few days of comments, that "AReasonableMan" is in fact a woman.
I am all but certain, after this comment, that Birkel is in fact a faggot.
###############
I am saving this for AReasonableMan to savor if she ever confronts herself honestly.
It will have to rest here some long while, I gather.
The unreasonable girl's reaction to being 'outed' is so, so revealing.
Anyway, it would be fun to watch The unreasonable girl burst into an apartment with a armed gunman holding a young lady hostage knowing The unreasonable girl would not panic when the gunman aimed at her because she would raise her Wonder Woman magical wrist bands blocking the bullets (pew, pew, your bullets can't harm me, gunman!) and then use her bare hands to disarm the hostage-taker and save the day!
And you wonder why the Second Amendment is so important to some of us.
Down here several years back one of our officers was called to an armed robbery of a liquor store where the alleged perpetrator had taken a female clerk as hostage.He deliberately fired one aimed shot and the alleged perpetrator became the deceased perpetrator.The former cop now works at a gun store here in town.Strangely enough when he talks about practicing with your weapon people listen.
It sounds like two different things to me. If the shooting was justified then the officers communications, even if they are stupid, shouldn't make any difference to the facts of the shooting.
it sounds like he's at least stupid. If his remarks reflect the culture of the police force, he's the only one we know of who made them so easily accessible.
Birkel said...
Your hetero-normative comment notwithstanding...
I am sorry. I retract that. I meant pederast. I wrote in haste without thinking about the underlying pathology.
EMD said...
And you wonder why the Second Amendment is so important to some of us.
I understand the appeal at a theoretical level but in my mind there are two practical problems.
The first is that when the amendment was first passed there was some relative balance of power between state and citizen in that both had muskets. Now, with a militarized police and a modern military there is no practical way to resist the state through armed conflict. In this respect the amendment has become outdated window dressing, giving the illusion of freedom without any functional meaning.
The second problem is that in our modern world idiots like Jay and Birkel, who once would not have survived childhood, now make it to adulthood. As a public health matter I can live with greater restrictions on firearms if it ensures that clowns like this are no longer armed.
Be careful, AReasonableMan.
Such a claim is definitely libelous and I could force your ISP to reveal who you are in order to sue you.
I believe you a woman.
And a meanspirited, hateful woman at that.
it is not so much that a hand gun can protect you against the might of the US Army, it is (1) it will protect you from the bad guys when the cops cannot or will not, and (2) it will make the state think twice about a lot of things, like keeping rogue cops on the force, if there is an assumption that most of the people are armed. With all the hand-wringing about Trayvon, people should also ask themselves, why do people who can afford to feel the need to live in gated communities protected by private armed guards at a time when we have so many public police officers?
Birkel said...
Be careful, AReasonableMan.
I have no idea why you choose to resort to name calling in the first place. I had never directed any negative comment towards you that I am aware of. I don't understand why some people feel the need to degrade the discourse on this forum with childish name calling. I am perfectly happy to trade insults if necessary. Hopefully it won't be necessary.
You may also be interested to know, AReasonableMan, that you cannot retract your words.
When you call me a pederast, after I call you out for your hetero-normative comment, you cannot take it back.
Your allegation that I have committed a sexualized felony stands forever, revealing the type of person you are.
Do you like the way you look in the mirror?
As for calling me an idiot...
Any reader of our respective comments can judge which of us has less command of language, a primary indicator of intelligence.
I look forward to your continued name calling.
And you will please point to where I have called you a name.
Simply asserting that I did so does not make it so.
I believe you a woman.
I recognize hatred in your comments and rightly note the hatefulness on display.
I also noted your early decent into bigotry and intolerance, as did others in this thread.
Those are not names.
And you should own what you are and have unwittingly displayed here today.
For shame,
cokaygne said...
it is not so much that a hand gun can protect you against the might of the US Army, it is (1) it will protect you from the bad guys when the cops cannot or will not, and (2) it will make the state think twice about a lot of things, like keeping rogue cops on the force, if there is an assumption that most of the people are armed.
But once it is no longer an issue of freedom and the sacred parchment it devolves to one of public health. What makes us safest. Once it becomes a public health issue the argument for guns becomes pretty weak.
With all the hand-wringing about Trayvon, people should also ask themselves, why do people who can afford to feel the need to live in gated communities protected by private armed guards at a time when we have so many public police officers?
I think this demonstrates a breakdown in social norms that both left and right can agree is a disaster. Where I live, which is statistically very safe, you still find some gated communities, presumably older people. But in this case the fear is irrational. I am not suggesting that is true everywhere. Breakdowns in public safety at this level are a function of bad government, banana republics masquerading as civil society.
Ann Althouse said...
If he's like all the other officers, verbally, than there's little connection to the shooting incident. If he's different, the question arises why he was not weeded out earlier.
He wasn't weeded out earlier for the same reason that many government employees are not weeded out. It's not the culture to weed them out.
I doubt that the average Madison cop jokes in writing about going on a shooting spree in dispatch, but I could be wrong.
We all say things to a trusted audience that we would not (or at least should not) put in writing. In the digital age all writing should be assumed to be publishable.
AReasonableMan said..
"I have no idea why you choose to resort to name calling in the first place. I had never directed any negative comment towards you that I am aware of. I don't understand why some people feel the need to degrade the discourse on this forum with childish name calling. I am perfectly happy to trade insults if necessary. Hopefully it won't be necessary."
That's kind of prissy, RM. (Prissy being an epithet most often directed at women.) Of course men can be prissy too. Your camouflage is quite effective, if indeed you are wearing any.
My Dearest Birkel
Your deep insight caused a momentary disturbance in the field of reasonableness that normally envelopes me.
Your perspicacity is only to be admired. You among hundreds of the commentators was the only one to see through my shameless disguise. Your intellect burns like a thousand suns and from your eyes all deception flees.
Sincerely
AReasonable?
The first is that when the amendment was first passed there was some relative balance of power between state and citizen in that both had muskets. Now, with a militarized police and a modern military there is no practical way to resist the state through armed conflict. In this respect the amendment has become outdated window dressing, giving the illusion of freedom without any functional meaning.
The Second Amendment is a vital reminder that we are citizens and not subjects.
Though given the fact that the political establishment is busy (purposefully?) destroying the concept of citizenship, the distinction might not have the meaning it once did.
AReasonableMan said...
The first is that when the amendment was first passed there was some relative balance of power between state and citizen in that both had muskets. Now, with a militarized police and a modern military there is no practical way to resist the state through armed conflict. In this respect the amendment has become outdated window dressing, giving the illusion of freedom without any functional meaning
Laugh out loud funny.
How in the fuck would you know?
So a silly little Internet troll who is a woman posing as a man, says "you can't defeat the government" and that is some sort of "practical" problem for the 2nd Amendment.
That's like totally persuasive.
Gahrie said...
The Second Amendment is a vital reminder that we are citizens and not subjects.
Though given the fact that the political establishment is busy (purposefully?) destroying the concept of citizenship, the distinction might not have the meaning it once did.
As inclined as I am to blame the state the problem is largely due to technology. Arms technology has advanced to the point where very few people would be comfortable with the nut down the end of the road having equivalent fire power to militarized police force, much less the army. And surveillance technology has largely eroded any privacy.
We have become a kind of Borg. There can be few periods in history comparable to the last sixty years where the individual has lost out so decisively to the state. I guess the Roman empire's take over of largely tribal societies was even more disruptive but there can't be many others. From the paranoia engendered by Russian nukes through to the present day surveillance technology not a lot has gone well for individual freedom.
Anybody reading knows beyond doubt that "AReasonableMan" is unreasonable.
I believe it is a woman.
That leaves only the article 'A' in doubt.
Would anybody here care to wager it is a group persona?
Finally, I assume she is a female community college professor.
I have no evidence for that bald assertion but it certainly isn't defamatory.
However the defamation leveled at me continues to live.
Perhaps if I am bored I will file an appropriate lawsuit just for giggles.
AReasonableMan said...
Now, with a militarized police and a modern military there is no practical way to resist the state through armed conflict
As evidenced by the recent insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Which branch of the military did you serve in again?
AReasonableMan said...
I am sorry. I retract that. I meant pederast
It is beyond funny that you think this a "reasonable" reaction to it being pointed out you are a woman.
What do you think your reaction says about you?
Why so touchy?
Birkel said...
Be careful, AReasonableMan.
Such a claim is definitely libelous and I could force your ISP to reveal who you are in order to sue you.
I believe you a woman.
And a meanspirited, hateful woman at that.
Another theory is a man with HIV -- someone with unresolved anger issues. It would explain the hair trigger reflexes around gay rights issues.
Besides not liking guns, AReasonableMan also intensely dislikes American football.
@Birkel: S/he called me a pederast too once. I think it means s/he likes you.
Althouse, for Pete's sake, this post reads like the Seinfeld backwards show.
AReasonableMan said...
The second problem is that in our modern world idiots like Jay and Birkel, who once would not have survived childhood, now make it to adulthood. As a public health matter I can live with greater restrictions on firearms if it ensures that clowns like this are no longer armed.
Nice projection. And note, you don't own firearms, have never been trained on firearms, and never served in the military, little lady.
Anyway, more than 167 million gun background checks were made through the FBI's system from 1998 through early 2013.
And the violent crime rate has declined precipitously over the same period.
You have nothing informed or intelligent to say on guns.
Wow, this blog sure draws some disgusting people to it. It's like the great Caricature of the Right. For those who are new and not entirely inflamed by partisan shrillery, just go to the beginning of the thread and read through. And then read about six more threads, chosen at random. You'll see.
I wonder what it is about Ann's blog, that brings people like "Jay," "Birkel," and "chickelit" in, in such force.
A "cruelly neutral" examination of this phenomenon--what IS the dominant persuasion of this internet community?-- would surely be "interesting."
harrogate said...
Wow, this blog sure draws some disgusting people to it.
Yes:
AReasonableMan said...
I am all but certain, after this comment, that Birkel is in fact a faggot.
Lovely lady that is huh?
Harrogate,
You made a bald assertion about what I said on this thread.
What, pray tell, did I say that was offensive?
That I glean from "AReasonableMan" her feminity is offensive?
That I rightly characterize defamation as such?
That I identify misogyny, bigotry and hetero-normative thinking?
Be specific, if you can.
How is that "disgusting" in any particular?
I wonder what it is about Ann's blog, that brings people like "Jay," "Birkel," and "chickelit" in, in such force.
My excuse is that I use to live around Madison and I still have relatives there. If Althouse moved, I'd probably leave. So if you want me to leave, harrogate, encourage her to move.
And the liberals with to limit the possession of modern firearms to the military AND SUCH POLICE?
areasonableman comes across as a stupid troll. I do not understand why so many of you would feed him or her.
Birkel, threatening to out commenters is pathetic and thuggish. It's just a dumb troll. You would have to show damages to win any, btw.
A shame that an interesting thread turns into a stupid one. I usually just lurk, but some of y'all take the internet too seriously and I wanted to call you out.
Dustin,
You are wrong. Allegations of sexualized felonies are libelous per se. Look it up, internet hectoring guy who enters a dead thread and calls names.
And it's not lame to say that I could do something that ought encourage another to act more responsibility. Posters think they have anonymity but libelous behavior removes that protection as a matter of public policy.
So, internet trolls should be on notice. And so should you. Think of this as a PSA.
So there.
Email stupidity is a fireable offense.
Post a Comment