Only a few hundred miles outside of Milwaukee, in a town of 2,000, a twenty year old "off-duty" deputy sheriff, and part-time police officer, apparently went bezerk, and went on a shooting spree, at an undisclosed private house, taking the lives of at least six people. The suspect, whose name is being withheld, was himself fatally shot by "authorities," some of whom may have worked at the same sheriff's office. Many of the specific details of this crime are being withheld, and t here is only speculation about the motive. (AP) A mother of one of the victims suggests jealousy might be behind the killler's rampage.
Okay, it's not like this is the first time a police officer has been involved in a violent crime, and okay, maybe we can rationalize this outrageous, and horrifying event by noting what a rare occurrence it is to see members of law enforcement committing homicides. Oh, and yes, maybe it's completely inappropriate to talk about ready access to firearms of all kinds, especially when we're talking about police. But, what does the police manual, in Crandon, Wisconsin, say about carrying a weapon when off duty? Yes, of course, this appears to have been a crime of passion, so one wouldn't expect the deputy sheriff to consult his manual beforehand.
That said, there appears to be far greater leniency with respect to the carrying, and use, of weapons by members of law enforcement in this country than is desirable. Interestingly, as you know, police officers in Great Britain don't carry guns, and that country has a much lower incidence of violent crime.
There are many who will use the "rotten apple" argument iin defense of America's law enforcement, and say that police departments needn't bother taking a closer look at the way they train their recruits with respect to when, where, how, and why they discharge their weapons, tear gas, and tasers. Maybe they're right. The commission of a crime like this by a police officer is clearly an anomaly, but we, as a society, can no more afford complacency, and apathy, when it comes to the actions of those we entrust with enforcing our laws than with those we elect to higher office.
And, factoring the National Rifle Association, and the abuse of legal, and illegal, weapons in this country, out of the equation, there have been way too many images, on the news, lately of policemen holding down an agitated, and anguished 45 year old woman at a Phoenix airport,.as well as rounding up members of Code Pink at a recent Lieberman/ McCain rally, and tasering an overzealous undergraduate at a Florida university for refusing to succumb to campus police after making controversial comments about impeaching the president. Oh, this is only what has been captured on camera. You wouldn't have to be there to guess how law enforcement handled the so-called Jenna 6, in Louisiana, when making their arrests judging by some of the amateur video that has made its way to primetime news of big city police beating up Rodney King, and others like him in inner cities around America.
But, what does this have to do with a clearly deranged young man who, possibly after what may have been little more than a lover's quarrel, does in his girlfriend, and her whole family? Simply this, when we are bombarded with news accounts of soldiers gunning down innocent Iraqi citizens, of Los Angelenos being tear gassed for speaking out against draconian measures targeting illegal immigrants, of riot police routinely making their presence felt at anti-war protest rallies, of youngsters being tasered, whether they be students at a college in South Florida, or young men of color in our nation's inner cities, how can any reasonable person possibly expect anyone who has access to a gun not to model the kind of obscene, irrational behavior that destroyed the lives of six, and will force the state attorney general of Wisconsin to consider what the evaluation process is, and how it is this 20 year old got to be a member of a sheriff's department in the first place. Hopefully, too, the attorney general will place more restrictions on the use of deadly force by the police on the police, or on any human being. Deadly face is no substitute for due process.
While one often thinks of Charleton Heston when thinking about the NRA, in this age of the cowboy, any gun-toting madman will do just as well..
Hopefully, the terrible event that took place in Wisconsin today will compel us all to examine empowerment by weapon, as well as an issue increasingly swept under the table, that of police brutality, and abuse of power. We know we've arrived when the "authorities" who shot the off-duty deputy sheriff to death themselves face review. We have become far too accepting of fatal shootings by on-duty police officers just as we're far too tolerant of those who think it's their constitutional right to bear arms, even when, increasingly, it's at the expense of innocent life.
This officer who fired his gun, and took the lives of six isn't the only poster child for the NRA; each of his victims is, too.
http://ladyjaynestahl.blogspot.com
Widely published, poet, playwright, essayist, and screenwriter; member of PEN American Center, and PEN USA.
David Robertsonposted 9/14/07 @ 7:26 PM EST - In Australia 4.1% of the population experienced a contact crime. - In England 3.6% of the population experienced a contact crime. - In Canada 3.4% of the population experienced a contact crime. - In America only 1.9%of the population experienced a contact crime.
Since enacting strict gun laws violent rape has increased substantially in England and Australia.
In England crime has increased substantially since the gun ban:
- Armed robbery increased by 170.1% - Kidnapping/abduction increased by 144.0% - Assault increased by 130.9% - Attempted murder increased by 117.6%
Sources: 1. Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey 2. Australian Crime Facts and Figures 2002, Australian Institute of Criminology, November, 2002, and Australian 1995 population numbers found at: Year Book Australia 2002, Australian Bureau of Statistics 3. Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003. British Home Office, July 2003, and United Kingdom 1992-2000, United Kingdom National Statistics Online 4. FBI Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate, 1984-2003, online
by
Duane Owen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 8:04:59 PM
You know, I'm really getting disgusted with the comments on this blog. I got my facts DIRECTLY from the Associated Press report Sunday morning. Obviously, as the day wore on, more details leaked out.
Why don't YOU do your research before attacking a writer----google the original AP report. Easy to attack---try writing something like this yourself.
Are the editors so desperate for a numbers count, on comments, that they'll print anything, however derogatory or derisive, that any neanderthal has to write????
You win, guys; you obviously don't want me to write anymore, so I won't; at least, not for this blog. You can have the political sphere to yourselves again!
by
Jayne Lyn Stahl (160 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 60 comments)
on Monday, October 8, 2007 at 11:24:22 AM
I sent sarge the stats for you, and here is a copy for you
David Robertsonposted 9/14/07 @ 7:26 PM EST - In Australia 4.1% of the population experienced a contact crime. - In England 3.6% of the population experienced a contact crime. - In Canada 3.4% of the population experienced a contact crime. - In America only 1.9%of the population experienced a contact crime.
Since enacting strict gun laws violent rape has increased substantially in England and Australia.
In England crime has increased substantially since the gun ban:
- Armed robbery increased by 170.1% - Kidnapping/abduction increased by 144.0% - Assault increased by 130.9% - Attempted murder increased by 117.6%
Sources: 1. Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey 2. Australian Crime Facts and Figures 2002, Australian Institute of Criminology, November, 2002, and Australian 1995 population numbers found at: Year Book Australia 2002, Australian Bureau of Statistics 3. Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003. British Home Office, July 2003, and United Kingdom 1992-2000, United Kingdom National Statistics Online 4. FBI Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate, 1984-2003, online
by
Duane Owen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 8:08:04 PM
Congratulations! Your article is by far the most snide and uninformed excuse for an editorial on gun control that I have ever read. No person involved in this tragic shooting is a "poster child" for the NRA. If one of the victims had been armed and had successfully defended himself, that person might be a poster child for the NRA.
In short, you simply used this tragedy as a device to slander the millions of law abiding NRA members.
You are desperately in need of some factual information on gun control.
Kleck notes that guns are used for self defense in the United States 2.5 million times per year. Persons who use guns for self-defense are less likely to be injured than those who resist by any other means or who do not resist at all.
As one lucky enough to be an X pat I'm sure the vast majority of yanks back in the old country are dazed and confused by life in 2007. I am and I haven't been back there in 15 years. Am I correct is suspecting that American has become a much angrier place post 9-11. All these "warnings" it seems to me have created a chicken licken vibe of a "terrorist" behind every tree. There was a window after 9-11 where America had sooo much sympathy and compasion and look at things now. Our "leaders" roll modeled "the sky is falling - the sky is falling" by running and attacking all over the place and now, well, now is seems this behavior is becoming more and more commonplace at the people level. I have a great deal of compassion for the yanks that have come to realize that this "plan" of attack WILL NOT WORK. Hate only creates more hate. YUP, we need a paradigm shift, A HUGE ONE. STAY STRONG
I learned from this article not to ever pick on the NRA or you get a huge amount of blah blah blah sheeesh and these are the folks with guns.
by
davy (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 241 comments)
on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 6:23:07 AM
Where in the AP article from which you derived your information was the NRA mentioned?
Was the deranged police officer cited as being an NRA member? From whence did the NRA connection come?
It's been my finding that the NRA has little, if anything, to do with protecting the "right" of police officers to carry firearms of any type.
The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban specifically exempted police/govt agencies and their officers from the limitations imposed on citizens, as have state-level laws resembling it.
Wisconsin, being one of only two states that expressly forbid citizens from carrying firearms for their defense, guaranteed unarmed victims facing this twisted police officer.
by (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 7:41:57 AM
In the similar article you posted to your blog, you include this bit of fiction:
"Interestingly, as you know, police officers in Great Britain don't carry guns, and that country has a much lower incidence of violent crime."
I'm interested in knowing how you arrived at that conclusion, because the facts don't support it.
According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, the UK (at their most-recent data point) had 4x more violent crime per capita than the US. Australia had 2x. Both countries banned or severely restricted civilian gun ownership, and saw their violent crime rate skyrocket.
Here's a link, if you can stomach the "inconvenient truth" behind disarming law-abiding citizens:
by (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 8:55:03 AM
This article is digustingly biased, inaccurate, and libelous
While the name of your website starts with “OpEd” which would suggest a certain cavalier attitude towards facts, that the full name is “OpEdNews” would seem to suggest that you should at least get basic facts correct. The writer Jayne Lyn Stahl would seem unable to handle that responsibility.
She says the following: “That said, there appears to be far greater leniency with respect to the carrying, and use, of weapons by members of law enforcement in this country than is desirable.”-- Jayne Lyn Stahl
This is, at best, merely an opinion, which might be forgivable if it didn’t paint with such an irresponsibly broad brush based on a few isolated incidents. However, her following statement is wrong on both counts. “as you know, police officers in Great Britain don't carry guns, and that country has a much lower incidence of violent crime”-- Jayne Lyn Stahl
Lastly, Ms. Stahl closes with this statement: “This officer who fired his gun, and took the lives of six isn't the only poster child for the NRA; each of his victims is, too.”As a card-carrying member of the NRA, I find this statement contemptible. Absolutely NOTHING in the mission of the NRA in any way condones any illegal activity with any firearm. This statement is unconscionable, and is bluntly; libel.
I respectfully request a written apology be posted on this web-site, on the same page as this article for as long as this article is available.
by
PersonalResponsibility (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 12:24:13 PM
You can ask, but you don't get a retraction or apology. The author posted this as an op-ed-- an opinion piece. This is her opinion. And we know about stats. I don't follow the most recent gun and shooting stats. But I remember Bowling for Columbine, with senile Charlton Heston, the NRA's "representative."
As publisher, I don't feel as opposed to gun ownership as Jayne. But I support her right to express her opinion.
You NRA boys might find one of my articles interesting, since it may apply to you.
Six negative comments and the author goes into complete meltdown mode. I think the author is far too thin skinned to be writing for a public forum. Apparently she only operates well when surrounded by people who reflexively agree with her.
The fact is, this article is very difficult to agree with, and I don't think it matters what your political philosophy is. The article is not well written and not completely coherent. To blame the NRA for American police officers having access to weapons is to blame the NRA for the trade deficit, the number of unwed mothers, and global warming. That is to say, the NRA isn't to blame for any of these things. The NRA is all about citizens having access to firearms, not government agents including police. Government agents having access to firearms is a foregone conclusion. If the NRA lobbied for or against it vigorously, it wouldn't matter. The government will always arm their agents. Pointing out the complete aberration of Great Britain doesn't really improve her argument. Britain is a huge aberration. Every other country, whether it is a violent country (Russia, Mexico) or a fairly non-violent country (Canada, France), arms it's police. And Britain is moving quickly in that direction also.
Blame the NRA for Columbine and VT if you want. Blaming them for this reduces your credibility to zero in a split second. The NRA bears no blame for this incident.
by
Going Bust (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 12:30:12 PM
"What does the police manual in Crandon, Wisconsin say about carrying a weapon when off duty?"
I don't know.
But I do know that the cops I play golf with always have their weapons with them. They are required to do so, in my state as well as in other states I have lived in.
What does that have to do with the NRA? Nothing.
I am told that people in Great Britain eat a lot more cabbage than we do here in the U.S. Could that explain the violence, or lack of it?
I didn't do any research for this either.
by
B York (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 76 comments)
on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 1:45:22 PM
let's try educating (as was done by the fella with the stats) instead of slamming. One sentence in the article was absolutely correct , where she stated that an action like this "by a police officer was clearly an anomaly".
Of course, you can delete "police officer" and the statement would still be correct. These behaviors are rare when broken down to % of people in general. But bad news sells.
by
George Venable (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 9:29:06 PM
I get it, I'm a big moron, and a big stupid woman. You can knock off the insults now. If the editor had any decency, he would stop posting comments that personally attack his writers, especially when he doesn't pay them, but clearly that isn't going to happen, so I'm going to ask you to stop whipping me. I already told you that you won---I'm a big dunce, and you won't ever see me post on this big dunce Web site again.
by
Jayne Lyn Stahl (160 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 60 comments)
on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 10:45:55 PM
The Author is threatening to punish us because so many people find so much of what she says offensive. BRING IT ON. There are many insane people in this world who are kind enough not to share their blatherings with us. We thank them silently but we thank them.
Her biase and irrational views of the world around her are exposed by her insinuation that this is an "NRA poster child". She hates the NRA for what they do on the surface AND hates the NRA for what they really do. The NRA SUPPORTS strict enforcement of existing laws. If someone breaks the law with a gun, they lead the charge to make sure that that person is punished. The Author ADMITS that she is anti enforcement of laws as well as she attacks the police as to "rough". So, one would assume she hates crime, but also hates the enforcement of laws against those who commit crimes.
This author can not comperhend thoughts complex enough to accept that so long as there are certain freedoms, those being essentially that the entire population be confined to straight jackets, there will be crimes of violence. it is not a good thing, but it is reality. So, so long as there are crimes of violence those who commit those crimes will need to be punished to protect the rest of us.
Even if that WERE to happen this author would likely hate the ADA because they support folks rights to have teeth, and crimes are being committed with teath, it breaks the calm of the perfect society she expects, Even the police have to have training on defensive use of their teeth because in her world that is about all they can defend themselves with. Law abiding citizens will have strict restrictions put on where they can go with teeth, etc.
May sound crazy, but then again I just read her op-ed, so I am still trying to gather all of the pieces of my head that exploded about half way through.
Of course we do not have enough straight jackets for the entire population, so I say we start with HER!
by
DougClem (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 9:35:57 AM
The authors reaction to the correction of her work speaks volumes. She puts her ideas out there, many disagree and express as much, and she recoils and is frustrated. My bet is this is a common pattern in her life.
It is also a common theme throughout her work. Criminals do something wrong, society strikes back, and she sees THAT as brutal and wrong. Her "op ed" was a vicious attack on the police AND the NRA. But should anyone viciously attack HER, well now that is just a little to much. Should she have received postive responce she would have likely patted herself on the back. But since it was otherwise she is likely rolled up in a corner wondering why everyone is so mean to her.
She simply can not rationalize the action/reaction sequence unless it is to her liking. And most real life situations are far to complex for her to comperhend to be of her likeing.
by
DougClem (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 10:04:44 AM
The author is right, the victims in WI are NRA poster children, they could NOT defend themselves because WI does not allow it residents to have guns.
The LEO is not a NRA poster child - even the most rabid anti-gunner like Schumer or Pelosi never advocae disarming the police or the military (or their personal armed guards:). They just want to disarm you and me.
The NRA has better taste than to dance in the blood of the victims. Look how quick the anti-self-defense crowd jumps in to take away our guns. You'd think they would respect the deceased for a couple of days at least.
by
switch (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 2:26:44 PM
This comment has been flagged and is awaiting review by the editors -
Reason: Inappropriate Content
Those of you who kneel at Charlton Heston's altar, stop attacking a virtuous lady who wants to put an end to senseless violence.
Stop the mysogenistic defenses of your manhood with a stiff rod in your hand that doesn't collapse or need viagra to sustain it, unlike the one it replaces.
Come off the macho male pretenses that the 2nd Amendment is the be-all and cum-all of a Constitution that's had a half dozen amendments decimated by the NRA freaks and their torture-loving supporters.
Nothing, anywhere in the world will ever match the psychopathically violent behavior of America's maniacal gun toters.
Stop defending the indefensible, and cut the childish crap about "It's not the guns but the people who kill people." Without the alternative cocks, the people could not kill people with bullets.
One of your great constitutionally protected gun nuts--a fourteen-year-old kid just tried to exercise someone's constitutional right, and--except for his lack of practice, only wounded a half dozen students before he blew himself away.
Of course, these are the kinds of stupid violent acts you enjoy on TV, in the newspapers, on the Internet and in your schools; and you have the audacity to indulge in the nastiest name-calling for an excellent scribe who wants to end the madness. Shame on you impotent mysogenists!
Paul Balles
by
Jayne Lyn Stahl (160 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 60 comments)
on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 12:16:15 AM
...of Jayne's original hit-piece and her ensuing vitriol is that she is the poster child of the NRA.
The unhinged hatred of law-abiding gun owners she spews underscores the need for a powerful, member-driven organization like the NRA to prevent her wish to disarm us all from becoming law. She unwittingly casts herself as the ideal "poster child" for this organization.
I think both sides of the gun ownership issue can agree on certain things causing our horrible crime rates, such as the appalling lack of prosecution and incarceration of criminals.
I haven't yet met the fellow NRA member who supports murderers, straw purchasers, or violent criminals who use guns to prey on the innocent. This is fertile, common ground on which all parties can agree and act.
Straw purchasers, for example, flood our streets with illegally-purchased guns that enable violent thugs. They are easy to catch under current law, but they routinely get only a slap on the wrist when brought to trial. The two Florida straw-purchasers who bought dozens of handguns, one of which was used to murder three college students in Newark this past summer, received such a light penalty as to virtually slap the faces of their victims.
Why can't we stop attacking each other, and come together to push our elected officials to stop this insanity while leaving law-abiding gun owners alone?
by (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 9:01:57 AM
In this one article and comment section, she's gone from mildly imbalanced to completely unhinged.
Jayne- stop projecting your insecurities onto law-abiding gun owners. When one can only see their own faults in others, it's time to seek professional help.
I wish you well, despite your ambitions of stripping away my right to defend my kids and myself from the criminals you and your ilk at the bench desire to keep out of prison.
by (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 6:20:31 AM
