Unarmed and Vulnerable
Nah, crooks never consider whether or not their victim might have a gun.
According to statements taken by police, the following sequence of events unfolded: Reynolds and Bolden drove up. Reynolds had wanted to rob a marijuana dealer who shot at him in June, and he needed a wingman. Bolden had his fiancée’s burgundy Dodge Intrepid and was available.
Reynolds thought the designated victim would be selling his marijuana near the Shell at 37th and Villard, and he directed Bolden there. They parked the car, got out and stood on the sidewalk across Villard from the gas station, watching as the blue Camaro pulled up. A white man got out, and immediately, their plans changed.
“I would imagine that they would see a white guy, they’d think he’s vulnerable,” said Rhodes, part of the crew but not with Reynolds and Bolden that night. “He probably wouldn’t be carrying no gun, nine times out of 10 he wouldn’t. They felt he was vulnerable, they felt he was weak, felt he was easy prey.”
Yeah, so if you’re selling drugs always carry a gun. This doesn’t really add much to the concealed carry debate.
Posted by scott on April 02, 2007 at 1029 hrs
Man, my grandmother used to live on 33rd and Villard; I spent a lot of time down there, at Smith Park, and the library at 35th and Villard.
Now it’s the inner city.
Posted by Brian J. on April 02, 2007 at 1034 hrs
No Scott, maybe after reading the story, someone a little brighter than you would realize, the white guy in the camaro is a target. Why was he the target Scott??? Because the criminals realize he isn’t packing. They realize that inner city thugs such as themselves, are probably not the best “victims” because they just might be packing.
They prey (in their own words) on those they realize are not able to defend themselves.
Scott you illustrate day after day, that your idieology trumps your intelligence.Posted by mickey on April 02, 2007 at 1044 hrs
Scott, it does add to the debate- you may not see it in WI, but where there laws concealed laws, it works- In Las vega, 5 times this yearmed, armed robbers have met their very timey deaths as a direct result of consealed carryc law- 5 people who will never terroize other people- shot dead bycitizens carry a consealed weapon.
After reading these articles- these people are not human, so to speak- they have no soul and hopefully, they will never see freedom again.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2007 at 1047 hrs
Mickey,
If you want to debate Scott on the merits of his position, go ahead, but stop resorting to personal attacks.
Posted by Jed on April 02, 2007 at 1050 hrs
Count me in as a person who believes in the 2nd amendment for the main reason it was intended…to protect against tyrannical governments (and boy can I see what they meant when they put that language in). Fighting crime is just an added plus.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2007 at 1051 hrs
the white guy in the camaro is a target. Why was he the target Scott??? Because the criminals realize he isn’t packing.
No, you’re wrong. They didn’t pick some random white guy in a Camaro who they suspected would not be armed. Check it out:
“Reynolds had wanted to rob a marijuana dealer who shot at him in June…”Actually, the more I think about it, had the victim not shot at the other dude in June, he’d not have been a target himself. So isn’t an equally valid moral of the story “do not shoot at other people, lest you be shot at yourself”? (Hey, wasn’t that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount?? Something like that.)
Posted by scott on April 02, 2007 at 1127 hrs
Did you miss the part where it said the victim was a cop? You might want to go back and read the story again..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2007 at 1211 hrs
Jed!! Have a nice day!
Posted by mickey on April 02, 2007 at 1216 hrs
Okay- What I’m reading here is that Balchunas was trained, licensed and armed and it did him absolutely no good. How this makes a case for someone with Mickey’s temper and judgement to carry at K-Mart is beyond me.
The moral of this story is that carrying a concealed weapon made no difference and may have been the deciding factor in causing the thug to pull the trigger in his panic.
The gun in Officer Balchunas’ belt may have been the catalyst to his being shot. A truly sad story but one that makes the case for getting guns off the streets, not for making them easier to get.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2007 at 1223 hrs
So am I being a bleeding heart liberal to ask how our society produced a monster like Reynolds. Why do we talk about conceal carry which is treating the symptom of the problem rather than treating the disease? The root cause needs to be addressed here. The root cause is making a Reynolds. Or not identifying a Reynolds and confining him before this disaster happens.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2007 at 1257 hrs
Balchunas was trained, licensed and armed and it did him absolutely no good. How this makes a case for someone with Mickey’s temper and judgement to carry at K-Mart is beyond me.
Damn straight.
Posted by scott on April 02, 2007 at 1310 hrs
Whether you carry a gun as a lawman or as a civilian under a concealed carry law, “situational awareness” will be a very significant factor in whether or not you become a victim.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2007 at 1414 hrs
“A white man got out, and immediately, their plans changed.”
So, a “hate crime”, then?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2007 at 1423 hrs
Not unless you believe race was the motive for the crime, no.
Posted by scott on April 02, 2007 at 1427 hrs
Haven’t heard of a “hate crime adder” then? Call it a “trigger” rather than a “motive”. Waiting to shoot a particular individual for revenge becomes attempted robbery of a stranger based on what, exactly? The color of his Camaro?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2007 at 1439 hrs
“Motive”? “Trigger”? Hell, why don’t we call it a ham sandwich? Seriously, I don’t know what drugs you’re on. The crime would have to be motivated by animosity toward the victims social group.
Posted by scott on April 02, 2007 at 1448 hrs
So, if they decided to rob him (and subsequently killed him) based on his skin color, would that meet your criteria?
I think you need to realize your Comment #7 is in error. The victim here was not the person who “shot at the other dude in June”. He was not even mistaken for him.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2007 at 1525 hrs
Look, let’s cut the bullshit. You don’t like the idea of hate crime laws. If you want to have a discussion about that, fine. But the mock-concern over whether this criminal gets prosecuted for one is bogus.
They decided to rob him because they believed him an easy target. Same thing that goes on every single time someone robs someone else. They didn’t rob or shoot him out of animosity toward white people or gay people or whatever kind of people. Know what the word “hate” in hate crime is there for? Give it some thought.
Yes, my comment #7 was wrong. Quite wrong.
As has been pointed out above, however, it’s a big stretch to see this incident as supporting concealed carry legislation. (Legislation I support incidentally.) After all, the victim was trained and armed. Not only did it not save him, it was actually the thing that sparked the would-be robbers to shoot him.
Posted by scott on April 02, 2007 at 1540 hrs
Sure, it’s a Thought Crime, selectively applied, and I’m under no illusion that’s it’s intended to be or ever will be applied to minorities.
My mock concern was intended to point out that the race of the victim was significant because it was (speculatively) assumed that he wouldn’t be carrying a weapon. The fact that he actually was carrying a weapon was not known, and therefore had no bearing on the decision to target him. As you point out, the fact that he did have a gun probably had something to do with him getting shot, when the robbers discovered it, and panicked. He could have made an aggressive move, or looked at somebody wrong and got capped anyway, but you never know.
If they thought a white guy out after dark at 37th and Villard might have a gun, perhaps they would have waited for even easier prey, like a little old lady or a priest or a peace activist or whatever.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2007 at 1622 hrs
As I said, you don’t like hate crime laws. Better to keep the discussion above board if that’s what’s really bothering you. Me, I’m all for minorities being charged with hate crimes. But this doesn’t really seem to be a hate crime, so I think you’re barking up the wrong tree.
They were not motivated by animosity toward the victims social or ethnic or religious group. Therefore it isn’t a hate crime. As in not motivated by hate of a certain group. You keep pointing out that his race played a role in his being targeted, but you keep dodging the issue that it was not motivated by hatred white people.
<i>If they thought a white guy out after dark at 37th and Villard might have a gun, perhaps they would have waited for even easier prey</a>
I’m not buying it. What percentage of persons in a city like Milwaukee will carry concealed guns if we pass a concealed carry law? I mean what are we talking about here, one in a thousand? Even less? With those kind of odds, I don’t think too many robbers are going to be deterred. No, they’re still looking for people who are appear non-threatening and who have money.
On a personal note, I often think about how i appear when I walk down the street. I walk several blocks of downtown milwaukee every day on the way to my car. And I’m often quite conspicuously carrying hundreds of dollars worth of electronic equipment, too. I look people in the eye. I smile broadly. I greet people. But if I’m approached by someone asking for the time or something and I don’t like the look of them I don’t even break stride. A quick, matter of fact “get the fuck away from me” lets them know just where I’m at.
So far so good.
Posted by scott on April 02, 2007 at 1641 hrs
The ability to see what “motivates” a person by looking at them must be a useful tool. May it continue to serve you well.
I think the theory is that if a few people who appear to be “non-threatening” turn out to be armed, and effective in defending themselves, it may serve as a deterrent in other situations. “One in a thousand” looks more significant when incidents play on the TV news.
Do you think this incident supports the argument that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry weapons will make “us” less safe?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2007 at 1701 hrs
Scott
Did I read that right you support conceal and carry? Good for you. I am glad to see (even more) support for my belief that you think and are not a knee jerk lib.
On the hate crime issue, I think the biggest problem with them is figuring out motive. Having to prove a motive is a new idea in criminal law - one that had been rejected for centuries because it was believed impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. “Intent” faces the same problem but the law developed a presumption that you knew what the natural result of you actions would be and thus you must of intended it. That same type of presumption would not work in the hate crime setting.
It is really also the first time in our criminal jurisprudence that we have assigned different punishments based on the motive of the crime. I really think that hate crimes should not be separate charges or automatic enhancers. Lets leave the motive to the sentencing judge. We did it that way for centuries and it has worked pretty well. If the judge thinks the race of the victim played a role in the crime then he can hand down a larger sentence.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2007 at 1725 hrs
Twice a week I park mere blocks from where Joe Munz (Jimmy John’s driver) was shot to death. I am an unarmed white boy in the city, and I don’t get to my car until, sometimes, 10pm. Is it fair that I, as a law-abiding citizen, am at a disadvantage to the thugs who run the streets? The police can’t be omnipresent. Why can’t I take my own personal protection into my own hands. It is utterly ridiculous (and sad).
Posted by Fuzz on April 02, 2007 at 1735 hrs
1. OK so in scott’s world, White on Black is a hate crime, but Black on white is justified.
NICE!
2.
I often think about how i appear when I walk down the street. I walk several blocks of downtown milwaukee every day on the way to my car. And I’m often quite conspicuously carrying hundreds of dollars worth of electronic equipment, too.
OK so you walk downtown, (well actually around the Marquette Campus I’m Guessing) With Several hundred dollars worth of electronics. OK, so what. Last time I checked, Downtown, wasn’t exactly a hot bed of robberies and murders. If you really want to impress us, try doing that in the inner city. Then I think we would be impressed. (And no scott, I am NOT suggesting you actually do that, I am merely pointing out the absurdity of that argument)
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on April 02, 2007 at 1802 hrs
OK so in scott’s world, White on Black is a hate crime, but Black on white is justified.
NICE!
in Michael J. Cheaney’s crack-addled world, when scott says “I’m all for minorities being charged with hate crimes” it actually means the opposite.
NICE!
Also, I’m not trying to impress anyone with the dangerous neighborhoods that I walk in. I’m well aware that there are much worse ones. The only “point” that I’m making is that how you carry yourself has something to do with whether or not you will be targeted for a crime. Any crime prevention or self-defense expert will tell you the exact same thing.
Posted by scott on April 02, 2007 at 1844 hrs
“I’m all for minorities being charged with hate crimes”
Fine. I missed I’m sorry.
The only “point” that I’m making is that how you carry yourself has something to do with whether or not you will be targeted for a crime
.
Trust me (And I am Speaking from PLENTY of Experience here)
How you “carry” yourself in the most crime ridden neighborhoods has NOTHING to do with it. My belief is that it is MOSTLY luck.Especially when you consider some of the pick-up and Drop-off locations for the material for the Marquette interchange!
And UNLESS YOU HAVE INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE that I do drugs, I suggest you retract the crack-addled comment.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on April 02, 2007 at 1940 hrs
Well, sir, I’m not an expert in that kind of self-defense. <strike>But I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night!</strike> But I have attended workshops run by retired Milwaukee police detectives and other knowledgeable individuals. They say the way you walk and speak to people has a meaningful impact on whether you will be selected as a victim. Luck? I’m sure that’s still a huge factor. Even larger is where you go and what time of day or night it is and whether you are alone, etc.
When I say you’re on crack, what I mean to say is that not only do I disagree vehemently, I find your thinking on the matter to be quite sub-par, mimicking a person whose mental capacities have been temporarily diminished, as one on drugs.
And I genuinely mean no offense.
Posted by scott on April 02, 2007 at 1952 hrs
You Don’t call than an apology do you scott?:-)
I have spent more nights in and around the inner-city than most of the residents I’m sure. And quite honestly when your in a VERY slow quad axle, dump truck (well at least with a load on) it is a very SCARY feeling knowing that I can be a target, just because my truck is big and slow. (now the driver on the other hand….he may be white but he can really move, if/when the time comes)
Just last summer I was the unfortunate witness to 4 murders. I am just very uncomfortable with people telling me, that I am not smart enough to carry a hand gun. (Which BTW is exactly Jim Doyles stand on the subject)
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on April 02, 2007 at 2005 hrs
I have a policy never to apologize to drug addicts. Heh.
I don’t care if you carry a handgun. I think it’s impact on your safety is dubious, but as long as you get trained and register it, I’m okay with it.
Posted by scott on April 02, 2007 at 2012 hrs
Michael, J. Cheaney, you don’t seem to understand the rules.
If you are Conservative you are held to a higher standard.
It’s called pandering. Most Conservatives or would be conservatives are deathly afraid of being called a name by libs. I.E. (you’re racist, you’re a homophobe, you’re xyz.) They are afraid to fight back when treated rudely.
I’ve seen it here. So have you.
Conservatives (or would be conservatives) allow themselves to be battered unfairly because they think fighting back is nasty. When I’ve stood up to the usual lib suspects here, I’ve been attacked and ganged up on. You’ve seen it.
But if I give them the same treatment, IT’S NOW RUDE and WRONG.
Being weak and not fighting back is what got Conservatism flushed down the toilet.Posted by mickey on April 02, 2007 at 2039 hrs
Those of us who read ALL of the article found that the perps actually preferred to pick on black people, because blacks didn’t cause trouble for them.
Balchunas was the exception to their rule.
One might argue that Balchunas’ situational awareness was not up to par that night (as Glenn intimates.) But you can’t argue with the testimony of the perps.
Nor is this a case “for” or “against” CCW. It’s a sorry situation.
Posted by dad29 on April 02, 2007 at 2043 hrs
They are afraid to fight back when treated rudely ... [conservatives] allow themselves to be battered unfairly because they think fighting back is nasty.
That’s hilarious!!!! Not only is it an almost certain fact that the majority of personal and “nasty” attacks here are conservative on liberal, you yourself are the most guilty party!!! Hoo boy, the lunacy here is breathtaking!
Posted by scott on April 02, 2007 at 2050 hrs
Oh my, Scott making personal attacks again. Scott, tisk tisk.
I guess you just can’t help yourself.Posted by mickey on April 02, 2007 at 2105 hrs
Personal attack or cold hard truth? Let’s let the other commenters decide, Mickey.
Posted by scott on April 02, 2007 at 2107 hrs
Scott, your personal attacks cannot be verified by fiat, nor by democracy. You cannot compete without your hate attacks.
I don’t mind Scott. Attack away!! I can take it!!Posted by mickey on April 02, 2007 at 2123 hrs
Dad29, Mr Balcunas was shot and killed because those who sought to rob him, didn’t announce themselves nor their presence or intention so as to give him an EQUAL OPPURTUNITY. The absolutely moronic attempts by anti-gun libs to use a GUN MURDER as a CASE against concealed carry is ridiculous and beyond absurd.
JFK was shot and killed despite MASSIVE CONCEALED WEAPONS. Lib conclusion…...SECRET SERVICE SHOULDN’T CARRY CONCEALED??
Ronald Reagan was shot DESPITE MASSIVE CONCEALED and NOT CONCEALED WEAPONS…..ditto.
Liberals are saying….YOU’RE DEAD ANYWAY, NO NEED TO CARRY. BALCUNAS was carrying, SO NO ONE CARRYING COULD SAVE THEMSELVES. At the risk of “PERSONALLY ATTACKING someone”, the logic is moronic.
1)Libs don’t address those who commit crimes while carrying ILLEGALLY. Libs aren’t incensed at the shootings that occur now.
2)Libs spend a lot of time and ILLOGIC, telling YOU and I, that we CANNOT CARRY, because…....(FILL IN REASON).
It’s clear, LIBS are AGAINST GUNS. And the LIB argument against guns, is FOUGHT AGAINST CONSERVATIVES who are against CRIME, but NOT AGAINST, PERSONAL PROTECTION.
Libs believe conservatives who want to protect themselves are a GREATER DANGER, than the SHOOTING GALLERY WE CALL MILWAUKEE today.
It’s like being against an innoculation, because your brother died by shooting up.
It’s like being against HOSPITALS, because your mom and dad died in a hospital.
Police officers aren’t mugged.
Why is that??Posted by mickey on April 02, 2007 at 2152 hrs
Someone on this thread hit the nail on the head.
All the Uzi’s under your coat or grenade launchers in your trunk will never deter a potential threat like a cold hard look in the eye.
Fired Cop Glenn ‘s “situationasl awareness” is a cold hard fact of life if the root cause of this kind of behavior is not addressed. Would you rather spend money on schools and social programs or for prisons and funerals?
And talk about nanny states, “Mommy can I carry a gun to protect myself?” Grow up and do what you need to do.
mickey you continue to be pathetic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2007 at 2238 hrs
Jed??? Pjr, is making personal attacks.
Jed, no biggie, I can handle the cheap shots.
2 easy tap in points.
1)“FIRED COP GLENN”????? Obvious cheap shot
2)PJR, uses the NANNY STATE as a backward illogical method against the “right to carry”.
Nanny state???? Mommy can I??
Quite the contrary…. We shouldn’t have to ask our “NANNY”.
Libs don’t get it. The Nanny State seeks to TELL US, whom and what we need protection from.
My COUNTRIES CONSTITUTION has GUARANTEED MY RIGHT TO CARRY AND PROTECT MYSELF.
I NEED NOT ASK MY NANNY!!!!!!
“”“"And talk about nanny states, “Mommy can I carry a gun to protect myself?” Grow up and do what you need to do”“”“”PJR, I’m not asking. I’m asserting my RIGHT to carry.
I don’t need your’s nor someone else’s mommy’s permission.Posted by mickey on April 02, 2007 at 2326 hrs
Then stop talking and like the ad says, “Just do it”
mickey you continue to be pathetic, and again it’s just an observation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2007 at 2331 hrs
Pjr, again it’s just an observation, BUT, you continue ot ATTACK ME PERSONALLY.
I think we’ve already decided that PERSONAL ATTACKS weren’t acceptable!!
Pjr, tell me more about FIRED COP GLENN!!
Pjr, you seem to be VERY PERSONAL???
Why is that ???
Posted by mickey on April 02, 2007 at 2344 hrs
It’s personable mickey
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2007 at 2355 hrs
No PJR, i do not mean personable. Pjr, are you ready to apologize???
Posted by mickey on April 03, 2007 at 0001 hrs
i do not mean personable
How would you know?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2007 at 0006 hrs
42. It’s personable mickey
Posted by pjr on April 02, 2007 at 2355 hrs
Ok.
Posted by mickey on April 03, 2007 at 0013 hrs
Mickey, you say your constitution guarantees your right to carry and protect yourself. Unfortunately, there are no guarantees on your constitutional rights anymore. Haven’t you heard the 1st and 4th amendments aren’t popular with the right wingers anymore? Protect that 2nd amendment; it might be all you have to protect the others some day.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2007 at 0741 hrs
I just had to ADD SOME MORE CAPITALIZED WORDS to this thread, which didn’t HAVE ENOUGH OF THEM, huh?
A quick scroll down a thread like this to see ALL THE CAPITALIZED WORDS to send me to another blog, where there is less SHOUTING and more reasoning.
It’s too bad. Mickey, Owen tried to create a place where people with different perspectives can talk with each other here, not ATTACK EACH OTHER. Yet you keep turning it from perspective to invective and turning off too many people who could learn from each other.
But you just make them leave—or, worse, they may think that all conservatives are as unreasoning as you and give up on attempting to talk with each other about issues. It’s too bad.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2007 at 1005 hrs
So anyway, I liked the part about hate crimes and the politically correct crap that helped bring us to this. What was the stat 80-90% of Milwaukee homicides in recent past have been black on black crimes, another portion (I apologize for not having the stats) is minority against minority or minority against white crimes. A very small percentage is white on any minority crime so we politically correcticize those by making those crimes get add-on penalties. Scott and PJR, are you really against Conceal and carry in today’s real world climate? Ideologically, I can see why many people would like to limit gun ownership, though I disagree with them. In the past, it even made more sense as most homicides were “crimes of passion” and could possibly have been avoided if a gun was not readily available. I don’t think this is still true now. The blacks in this article didn’t hate the white victim, they despised him as not being from their mean streets thus they were prey…animals…beneath them. Personally, I think that attitude is a bit worse than hate crimers. Mickey, lighten up! In my roleplaying days as a kid, you were the type that kept getting the rest killed or betrayed them to the enemies…fun for you, just not anyone else. Personally gratify your aggressive need with one hand and a Hustler, write your ideas without the crap I often agree with the general ideas you touch upon in between the invective. Great word, invective, very descriptive.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2007 at 1119 hrs
Tuegras,
When/Where did you ever get the idea that I am opposed to CC. I personally like wearing it in plain view as in AZ.
To paraphrase Amex, I seldom leave home without one.
As far as whether or not it will have an effect on urban crime problems,? I doubt it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2007 at 1135 hrs
Sorry PJR,
I didn’t see where you said you were for it or against it, I misinterpreted 38 in the Mickey-bating.
That is illegal in some states you know.
(Please interpret that as a joke people)Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2007 at 1142 hrs
Scott and PJR, are you really against Conceal and carry in today’s real world climate?
I’m not against it. Never said I was. If I had to vote on it, I’d likely vote yes. But it has nothing to do with crime or “today’s real world climate,” whatever that means. I don’t think it will have a meaningful impact on public safety, murder rates, robbery, any of it.
The reason I’d vote for it? Because I don’t see it as a danger, either. And absent a compelling public interest either way, the government should let people do what they want.
Posted by scott on April 03, 2007 at 1144 hrs
Just back from a concealed-carry state for three years now, next door to us. In Minnesota, it’s startling (and can’t be good for tourism) to see huge signs at every door to stores, restaurants, etc., reminding us that everyone inside could be carrying a concealed weapon. That made room service look really good.
So it was interesting to think about the law that was put forward here, as one versionwould have required even more signage—in classrooms and churches, for example, as well as announcements before classes, services, etc.
But I also read there a detailed report in the Star Tribune that the law has had no impact on crime, measured by the usual statistics. (Of course, as the paper didn’t say, since it’s purely hypothetical, it could be that crime would have increased without the law, and that’s the reason for no decrease at all.)
So the results so far in a similar state and city are not encouraging—and again, the impact that is visible was startling, considering that tourism is Wisconsin’s number-one industry. I hope that all such factors are considered here—perhaps with a limit on the size of the signs!—in our state, however this debate goes forward.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2007 at 1603 hrs
Mickey, I appreciate your defense of me regarding pjr’s comment. I don’t know if he was taking a shot at me or if he used the word “fired” as it was used when General’s George Patton and Douglas MacArthur were relieved of their commands. I can only say this, under my command of Milwaukee Police District #3, we reduced overall major crime 2 years running (2002 & 2003); reduced violent crime by 15.5% in 2003 and that included a reduction of robberies by 21.7%; and addressed the concerns - big and small - of the good people in every neighborhood of District #3. By comparison, what has Hegerty done?
As for my comment about “situational awareness”, it is major but is only one of many factors necessary to avoid becoming a victim.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2007 at 1705 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134060
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 06:18 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 106
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 07:35 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).