Death in Milwaukee

No, the tea party is not on the decline as recent news stories have suggested. I am sorry for creating that impression by my lack of posts recently.

Just over a week ago here in Milwaukee three individuals were shot and killed by the Milwaukee Police Department. Two of the deaths are of particular note. In both cases the men were wielding knives.

The first man was off his medication. He was threatening others and himself. He had cut himself, including his wrists. He died in a literal hail of gunfire that lasted several seconds according to a cell phone video of the incident. Several police officers were there and he advanced on them.

The other was a man making serious threats against his family with two cleavers. According to the man’s father he had even cut the coat the father was wearing, from what I understood from the news interview. The man went out to talk to the police against his father’s advice, still holding the two cleavers. The police say he advanced on them. The father says he was standing in place. They shot him dead.

Both serious situations for the responding officers. Local news coverage covered the training officers receive and how fast distances can be closed. The officers need to make quick decisions to defend themselves.

A bullet does not necessarily mean an assailant will be stopped. Though when Tasers were introduce the media covered them as well. They instantly drop a potential offender. The muscles lock up. Especially in the first shooting I described why wasn’t a Taser used as soon as the police arrived on the scene? The man had cut his own wrists. Haven’t we all seen you/tube or news coverage of police officers simply dropping a suspect with a Taser even when the suspect didn’t appear to be doing anything dangerous at the moment?In both cases the individuals were holding knives, not guns. In both situations more than one officer was on the scene. Could not one risk using the single shot Taser that would drop a man instantly?

I made a comment on our neighborhood site that my cousin-in-law, a police officer, had told me police policy was to shoot coyotes but by the time they get there long guns out the coyotes are already gone. This policy was told to me some ten years earlier. Another neighbor said the police chief said they were not animal control and he was indignant, stating his officers are too busy to shoot coyotes. OK, policies change (the point of this post if you are wondering) but certainly coyotes running around the city are a public safety issue. Then I made a more powerful point in response.

‘They sure are not shy about shooting peoples dogs’; was my own indignant response. I had heard several second hand accounts of people’s dogs being unduly shot by police officers. I heard first hand two accounts of people I know who’s dog were shot and killed. Both dogs were not vicious though one was a pit bull. They simply had escaped. I clearly recall a news report some years back where a couple accused the police of killing their dog. They said it was under control at their side when it was shot. I recently saw a news report of a standoff situation where the suspect was taken from his home and arrested. So prominent in the coverage was the suspect’s dog walking out into the crowd, tail between its leg, paying no attention to anyone, that the reporter had to mention that the police had to shoot the dog. They didn’t have to.

Are there litigation issues that Tasers have fallen out of use? Is it fiscally more responsible to use lethal force in the form of a firearm because there is a history recognized by the courts? Do we have just too many dogs that a policy of simply euthanizing them at any opportunity has become policy? Or is something more sinister afoot?

The Milwaukee police chief has been extremely critical of concealed carry and gun ownership in general. Comments in the past of what his officers would be instructed to do to law abiding gun owners if concealed carry passed (it did) could only be read as a threat. In the city of West Allis, especially when the concealed carry law was being formed, there were several cases of gun were confiscation brought to light. One man was open carrying while working in his yard. When guns are confiscated from law abiding citizens it is very difficult to get them back. In one recent case it took a man a year. In the West Allis case it came to light that the police often purposely damage confiscated guns making them unusable or permanently visually marred. These were guns of citizens in good standing. What is the goal of such policies?

This Winter the public became aware of some 2,000 armored vehicles being acquired by homeland security for domestic use. The idea shocked most Americans. Eventually while the government and Obama administration were being criticized the conclusion that dropped the issue from the minds of most was “Who could they ever get to man these vehicles?” With this, the idea that Obama could never inflict a police state even if he wanted to won the day.

The Obama administration and democrat politics in general are all about pitting one group against another whether by race, economic class, religion or the absence there of, whether one is a citizen or not, whether one is a man or a woman or some combination. I could go on. They manipulate the media, your children’s education and the moral and political foundations of the nation. They promote a faith like adherence to political correctness in our military. Is it a stretch to believe that policies would be put in place that would drive a wedge between the public and law enforcement? Policies that would create an us versus them atmosphere in our cities?

The idea on its face seems contradictory to common efforts made by local police departments to build relations with the public. This is conjecture based on observation and experience, but …who will man those armored vehicles?