Another Police/Gun incident in Milwaukee

[Pants]

Do you think all these charges were justified?
Because of the time of the incident, I can see possibly disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace.

Possession of a Dangerous weapon? Use of a Dangerous weapon? The person may have been legally drunk.. But shouldn't he have a right to fire his weapon on his own property? Perhaps his neighbors are 3 feet away.. And bullet fragments were hitting the neighbor's windows.. but these charges seem a little too extreme. And why lock him up in jail?


Posted: March 2, 2010
Wauwatosa Now

A 32-year-old Milwaukee man fired shots in the air in an effort to get a
faster response from police for a theft he reported early Sunday morning.

According to Wauwatosa police:

Several residents reported hearing three or four shots fired and seeing
several men on the street in the 2700 block of North 76th Street about
5:30 a.m. Wauwatosa police responded to the scene and learned he had
called Milwaukee Police Department at 2:30 a.m. to report a theft.

He called back more than a dozen times, angry about the time it was
taking to respond to his call, and told the dispatcher that if he went
outside and fired shots, police would how up faster.

Police went to the man's home in the 2900 block of North 81st Street to
take his complaint and investigate the shootings. He had a black
semiautomatic handgun out in the open. He was also drunk with a
blood-alcohol content of 0.17.

He told officers he and a friend had met women at a Milwaukee bar that
night and invited them back to his home. While he was out of the room
for awhile, the women disappeared and his laptop computer and car were gone.

On his first call to 911, the man was told that since the theft had
already happened, there was no imminent threat of harm and an officer
would respond when one became available.

The man was arrested for endangering safety by possession of a dangerous
weapon, use of a dangerous weapon and disorderly conduct.

He is sitting in Milwaukee County Jail and the district attorney is
expected to issue charges.

[Reason]

Firing a gun into the air to "get faster police attention" is stupid and dangerous.

Bullets come back down, he could have killed a kid, he was in no danger.

[Pants]

What kids are going to be out at that time of the night? Milwaukee has a 11 PM Curfew for underage kids.



Firing a gun into the air to "get faster police attention" is stupid and dangerous.

Bullets come back down, he could have killed a kid, he was in no danger.

[Reason]

What kids are going to be out at that time of the night? Milwaukee has a 11 PM Curfew for underage kids.

Bullets that go up.

Tend to come back down...

Pretty simple...

Bottom line is that you shouldn't be firing your weapon in a situation like that unless you're defending yourself or someone else.

[1000-points-of-fright]

What kids are going to be out at that time of the night? Milwaukee has a 11 PM Curfew for underage kids.

Bullets can go through windows. I'm pretty sure he didn't shoot exactly straight up, therefore the bullets travel in an arc.

[ResistTemptation]

I call bullshit on all of yall. Show me the victim. Now look, I DO NOT support this man's behavior. What he did was completely irresponsible. Even worse, he makes guns look bad in a time where we need them the most. But show me who was injured or had property injured during the shooting. It is no different than believing that DUI laws are pseudo "though crimes" or "pre-crimes." We often support removing restrictions on all sorts of "dangerous" activities including driving because victimless crimes is an oxymoron considering crimes only exist when a victim is created. If there is no victim, then what kind of charge does this man "deserve?" I say that none of the charges are credible. I DO believe that, depending on the circumstances (e.g. creation of a victim by noise), a charge of disorderly conduct would be the most "acceptable" charge. Based on American laws (I don't support the current system as it is established, thus the qualification), I think some kind of negligence is the most appropriate, though I of course do not support "pre/thought crime" laws.

[GunnyFreedom]

Agree with CR here -- firing a weapon up into the air is stupid and dangerous. I am a 100% freedom kinda guy, and even I would support a charge of "public endangerment" for firing into the air in any environment, especially a municipal environment. Firing into a backstop, or into the ground is another matter entirely, but any idiot who would fire a weapon into the air is clearly endangering the public.

Ballistic math demonstrates that a projectile on it's way back down to earth will have no problem penetrating someone's roof and killing them in their bed, even at 2:30 AM. Even if it misses all persons, a hole in the roof can get prohibitively expensive to repair.

I, for one, think that people shooting (specifically) "into the air" should be arrested even if their goal is to frighten off a potential attacker (ie -- in self defense). Is it too much to ask to shoot into a tree, or the ground, or a sewer, or any number of places where a firearm can be safely discharged? Shooting into the sky very much deserves a short stay in the county lockup and a heavy fine, IMHO. And the more heavily populated the area, the more severe the penalty should be. There is no question but that his actions genuinely endangered the public.

[GunnyFreedom]

I call bullshit on all of yall. Show me the victim. Now look, I DO NOT support this man's behavior. What he did was completely irresponsible. Even worse, he makes guns look bad in a time where we need them the most. But show me who was injured or had property injured during the shooting. It is no different than believing that DUI laws are pseudo "though crimes" or "pre-crimes." We often support removing restrictions on all sorts of "dangerous" activities including driving because victimless crimes is an oxymoron considering crimes only exist when a victim is created. If there is no victim, then what kind of charge does this man "deserve?" I say that none of the charges are credible. I DO believe that, depending on the circumstances (e.g. creation of a victim by noise), a charge of disorderly conduct would be the most "acceptable" charge. Based on American laws (I don't support the current system as it is established, thus the qualification), I think some kind of negligence is the most appropriate, though I of course do not support "pre/thought crime" laws.

So someone who fires a machine-gun into a crowd of people should not be charged, if the rounds happen to miraculously miss all the people?

[ResistTemptation]

So someone who fires a machine-gun into a crowd of people should not be charged, if the rounds happen to miraculously miss all the people?

I support charges in the case of the man shooting into the air, just not the charges filed against him and not through the same process. I support anyone who has had their rights infringed to seek retribution/payment through a justice system, but I do not support government pressing charges because, well, the government we have today is not Constitutional and is therefore illegitimate (and I'm an an-cap so my perspective comes from there also). People can be victims, even gov. employees, but only people have rights. The whole state vs. people thing is backwards.

The case you present is a difficult one to conclude on, at least from a pure libertarian perspective. You have taken a dangerous activity we do everyday and amplified it to the extreme to make your case--a usually successful strategy. What I mean is, in essence, your case is not different than driving an automobile on public roads or in public ways. The act of driving we protect, even though it is perhaps the most dangerous daily activity we perform. Everyday lives are lost due to the dangers of driving. Both cars and guns are tools. Both can be used as weapons as well. But we don't generally prosecute drivers for endangering lives by the mere act of driving a two ton speeding object that kills thousands of lives every year--at least until a victim was created (and even then, you have to consider intent). In the case you presented any one of those who got shot at has the ability to press charges against the maniac machinegunner. Charges such as negligence, perhaps, though I don't claim to know the full implications of such a charge in a true anarchy.

I'm only trying to be impartial to Liberty. I do not claim to hold all or even most of the answers to Liberty or libertarianism or classical liberalism. I do not even claim to be right, either. These ideas are what I believe to be the extreme logical extensions of the theories of Liberty and rights. I also accept that any libertarian/capitalist system is imperfect. Such systems are only the most beneficial (pragmatism) and most ethical that humanity has thus far been able to reason--not perfect. If this was confusing then I'm sorry but it is probably because I'm confused myself. We see these cases as in the OP as terrifying and wrong, but on a pure Liberty level of evaluation, the answer to these cases is sometimes terrifying as well.

PAX ET LIBERTAS IN AETERNUM

[payme_rick]

very interesting discussion...

[GunnyFreedom]

I support charges in the case of the man shooting into the air, just not the charges filed against him and not through the same process. I support anyone who has had their rights infringed to seek retribution/payment through a justice system, but I do not support government pressing charges because, well, the government we have today is not Constitutional and is therefore illegitimate (and I'm an an-cap so my perspective comes from there also). People can be victims, even gov. employees, but only people have rights. The whole state vs. people thing is backwards.

The case you present is a difficult one to conclude on, at least from a pure libertarian perspective. You have taken a dangerous activity we do everyday and amplified it to the extreme to make your case--a usually successful strategy. What I mean is, in essence, your case is not different than driving an automobile on public roads or in public ways. The act of driving we protect, even though it is perhaps the most dangerous daily activity we perform. Everyday lives are lost due to the dangers of driving. Both cars and guns are tools. Both can be used as weapons as well. But we don't generally prosecute drivers for endangering lives by the mere act of driving a two ton speeding object that kills thousands of lives every year--at least until a victim was created (and even then, you have to consider intent). In the case you presented any one of those who got shot at has the ability to press charges against the maniac machinegunner. Charges such as negligence, perhaps, though I don't claim to know the full implications of such a charge in a true anarchy.

I'm only trying to be impartial to Liberty. I do not claim to hold all or even most of the answers to Liberty or libertarianism or classical liberalism. I do not even claim to be right, either. These ideas are what I believe to be the extreme logical extensions of the theories of Liberty and rights. I also accept that any libertarian/capitalist system is imperfect. Such systems are only the most beneficial (pragmatism) and most ethical that humanity has thus far been able to reason--not perfect. If this was confusing then I'm sorry but it is probably because I'm confused myself. We see these cases as in the OP as terrifying and wrong, but on a pure Liberty level of evaluation, the answer to these cases is sometimes terrifying as well.

PAX ET LIBERTAS IN AETERNUM

Posting from my phone, so this will be brief.

I agree that there is too much emphasis on penalties for drunk driving, but think there should be some sort of discouragement (preferably societal in nature) because of it's potential to lead to traumatic injury or death of others. A thought I had once was to stop punishing the act of drunk driving, but massively increase the tort/punishment for drivers who do damage/injury because they are drunk. That means a drunk driver who hurts nobody will be unscathed, but if he kills someone that should be murder, not 3rd deg manslaughter. Clearly, that is not the solution either, but it was a thought I had some years ago.

I agree also that the state vs a defendant when there is no real victim is absurd. How is "the state" harmed when an adult smokes a joint?

But in the case of full-speed bullets raining down on neighborhoods (and given the stupidity of Hollywood glamorizing the practice of firing into the air, there actually could be real quantities of it) there is a victim in that the affected community becomes less safe even if there is no directly injured party.

In some regions of the Middle East, it is a tradition to fire into the air to celebrate...whatever, and a handfull of people do die every year from bullets falling back to earth. Unlike the driving scenario, there is no way to tell who fired the round that killed someone, outside of a ballistics lands and grooves database which nobody wants.

With driving, when there is a clear victim, there is usually a clear offender. With firing in the air, assuming it were freely tolerated, someone could die entirely without recourse of justice.

I assume that depending on the society, voluntaryist or otherwise, there might be a solution. The community could sue for being imperiled perhaps, and thus create a kind of punishment for someone shooting into the air.

But unlike victimless drug "crime" where the State has to play the offended party because no real victim can be identified, in this case there IS a real victim even if nobody got hit: all the members of the community where this took place were placed in random mortal danger by the actions of a moron.

This affects key realities also. If shooting in the air were unpunished and became a habit, property values would decline. I should not have to up-armor my roof, walls, and windows because my neighbor is a moron.

So it is unlike the driving scenario because when a real injury occurs, a real offender can be readily matched. In the case of shooting in the air that is not necessarily true. This is not like the victimless drug user scenario either, because even if nobody was hit, the area in about 1 mile radius was genuinely victimized...Russian Roulette still makes a victim even if the hammer falls on an empty chamber.

So I am of the opinion that this is one of the few cases in which public endangerment is a valid charge, and the charge was rightfully pressed. We could, I suppose, argue about whether "the state" was the right party to press those charges, or if some means whereby every resident within max ballistic range of the shooter should have been brought in to file a class action charge, but bottom line for me is that this guy was right to have been charged. Maybe he will think twice next time before endangering the lives of the people around him.

[nateerb]

I live in Milwaukee. You know how to get the cops over here faster? Tell them someone is destroying municipal property, especially revenue generating property like parking meters.

Paraphrased trasnscript from a couple years ago.

Me about 3AM on a Saturday: "There are a group of loud teens outside harassing people as they walk by, throwing things at them, and calling them 'whitey cracker' and talking about what they will do to the women's genitals".

MPD: "We'll send a squad"

...an hour later...

Me: "Where is that squad?"

MPD: (nasally) "On it's way , ssssirr, we are very busy tonight."

Me (outright lying now): "Okay, well now it appears they are bashing the shit out of the parking meters with something"

MPD: "Thank you sir".

Squad appeared in less than 90 seconds.

[RyanRSheets]

Posting from my phone, so this will be brief.

I agree that there is too much emphasis on penalties for drunk driving, but think there should be some sort of discouragement (preferably societal in nature) because of it's potential to lead to traumatic injury or death of others. A thought I had once was to stop punishing the act of drunk driving, but massively increase the tort/punishment for drivers who do damage/injury because they are drunk. That means a drunk driver who hurts nobody will be unscathed, but if he kills someone that should be murder, not 3rd deg manslaughter. Clearly, that is not the solution either, but it was a thought I had some years ago.

I agree also that the state vs a defendant when there is no real victim is absurd. How is "the state" harmed when an adult smokes a joint?

But in the case of full-speed bullets raining down on neighborhoods (and given the stupidity of Hollywood glamorizing the practice of firing into the air, there actually could be real quantities of it) there is a victim in that the affected community becomes less safe even if there is no directly injured party.

In some regions of the Middle East, it is a tradition to fire into the air to celebrate...whatever, and a handfull of people do die every year from bullets falling back to earth. Unlike the driving scenario, there is no way to tell who fired the round that killed someone, outside of a ballistics lands and grooves database which nobody wants.

With driving, when there is a clear victim, there is usually a clear offender. With firing in the air, assuming it were freely tolerated, someone could die entirely without recourse of justice.

I assume that depending on the society, voluntaryist or otherwise, there might be a solution. The community could sue for being imperiled perhaps, and thus create a kind of punishment for someone shooting into the air.

But unlike victimless drug "crime" where the State has to play the offended party because no real victim can be identified, in this case there IS a real victim even if nobody got hit: all the members of the community where this took place were placed in random mortal danger by the actions of a moron.

This affects key realities also. If shooting in the air were unpunished and became a habit, property values would decline. I should not have to up-armor my roof, walls, and windows because my neighbor is a moron.

So it is unlike the driving scenario because when a real injury occurs, a real offender can be readily matched. In the case of shooting in the air that is not necessarily true. This is not like the victimless drug user scenario either, because even if nobody was hit, the area in about 1 mile radius was genuinely victimized...Russian Roulette still makes a victim even if the hammer falls on an empty chamber.

So I am of the opinion that this is one of the few cases in which public endangerment is a valid charge, and the charge was rightfully pressed. We could, I suppose, argue about whether "the state" was the right party to press those charges, or if some means whereby every resident within max ballistic range of the shooter should have been brought in to file a class action charge, but bottom line for me is that this guy was right to have been charged. Maybe he will think twice next time before endangering the lives of the people around him.

That wasn't brief at all!

[John of Des Moines]

So someone who fires a machine-gun into a crowd of people should not be charged, if the rounds happen to miraculously miss all the people?

The intent of firing into a crowd of people is to do harm. If somebody fires a gun at me and through the grace of God I am able to dodge the bullet the shooter's intent was to murder me, thus an attempted murder is appropriate.




Posting from my phone, so this will be brief.

I agree that there is too much emphasis on penalties for drunk driving, but think there should be some sort of discouragement (preferably societal in nature) because of it's potential to lead to traumatic injury or death of others. A thought I had once was to stop punishing the act of drunk driving, but massively increase the tort/punishment for drivers who do damage/injury because they are drunk. That means a drunk driver who hurts nobody will be unscathed, but if he kills someone that should be murder, not 3rd deg manslaughter. Clearly, that is not the solution either, but it was a thought I had some years ago.

I agree also that the state vs a defendant when there is no real victim is absurd. How is "the state" harmed when an adult smokes a joint?

But in the case of full-speed bullets raining down on neighborhoods (and given the stupidity of Hollywood glamorizing the practice of firing into the air, there actually could be real quantities of it) there is a victim in that the affected community becomes less safe even if there is no directly injured party.

In some regions of the Middle East, it is a tradition to fire into the air to celebrate...whatever, and a handfull of people do die every year from bullets falling back to earth. Unlike the driving scenario, there is no way to tell who fired the round that killed someone, outside of a ballistics lands and grooves database which nobody wants.

With driving, when there is a clear victim, there is usually a clear offender. With firing in the air, assuming it were freely tolerated, someone could die entirely without recourse of justice.

I assume that depending on the society, voluntaryist or otherwise, there might be a solution. The community could sue for being imperiled perhaps, and thus create a kind of punishment for someone shooting into the air.

But unlike victimless drug "crime" where the State has to play the offended party because no real victim can be identified, in this case there IS a real victim even if nobody got hit: all the members of the community where this took place were placed in random mortal danger by the actions of a moron.

This affects key realities also. If shooting in the air were unpunished and became a habit, property values would decline. I should not have to up-armor my roof, walls, and windows because my neighbor is a moron.

So it is unlike the driving scenario because when a real injury occurs, a real offender can be readily matched. In the case of shooting in the air that is not necessarily true. This is not like the victimless drug user scenario either, because even if nobody was hit, the area in about 1 mile radius was genuinely victimized...Russian Roulette still makes a victim even if the hammer falls on an empty chamber.

So I am of the opinion that this is one of the few cases in which public endangerment is a valid charge, and the charge was rightfully pressed. We could, I suppose, argue about whether "the state" was the right party to press those charges, or if some means whereby every resident within max ballistic range of the shooter should have been brought in to file a class action charge, but bottom line for me is that this guy was right to have been charged. Maybe he will think twice next time before endangering the lives of the people around him.

Please stay off the phone. Hate to think how long your post had you been in front of your computer with a real keyboard.

[GunnyFreedom]

The intent of firing into a crowd of people is to do harm. If somebody fires a gun at me and through the grace of God I am able to dodge the bullet the shooter's intent was to murder me, thus an attempted murder is appropriate.

Well, you can't criminalize intent, really, because it's subjective. I know that our legal system currently weighs intent in order to determine the degree of a felony -- ie involuntary manslaughter vs murder in the 2nd , in the 1st etc. Problem is intent is intangible, and more subject to jury prejudice than anything else in our system.

As to whether you have been imperiled, or endangered, that is a far less controversial judgment call to make. Endangerment is generally the key to whether a crime has occurred, flowed by a determination of intent to figure out to what degree the charges should be laid.


Please stay off the phone. Hate to think how long your post had you been in front of your computer with a real keyboard.

It's a subject I am passionate about, being a shooter, and once I got started I couldn't finish until the thought was finished. If it becomes "OK" to shoot up into the air in a populated neighborhood, you can bet your bottom dollar that the residents will know about it. Some will take advantage of it by shooting into the air, others will live in mortal fear for their lives from falling bullets, and others will move the hell away.

This is one of the few examples one could cite where people are victimized whether a bullet actually strikes someone or not, much like the attempted murder, but with less of a murderous intent.

So "Public Endangerment" or "Reckless Endangerment" would be appropriate instead of "Attempted Murder" for the example of firing into the air, but nevertheless, a charge of some kind would certainly be appropriate.

[MelissaWV]

Firing into the air when you have obviously better alternatives is stupid as hell and does endanger others. If we're taking it as fact that there's a charge for endangering others, this would be a good application of it. It shouldn't carry jail, and the intent (or mental capacity) of the person doing the endangering should be taken into account.

I would be pretty pissed off too, though, if it was taking police long enough for me to call "a dozen times."

I would definitely have words for this guy, if I were his neighbor... I probably would have had words regardless of whether he was shooting up in the air, or into the ground, actually. A drunk, pissed-off moron with a gun having a shitfit in his yard is not a good neighbor to have.