Police: Slain Wisconsin student apparently dialed 911 before death, but help was not sent

Source: AP

MADISON, Wis. - A college student apparently called 911 from her cell phone shortly before she was killed but a dispatcher hung up, failed to call back and never sent police to investigate, authorities said Thursday.


Link here http://www.startribune.com/local/18483139.html


What a shame, people should have the means to defend themselves.


David

When did Wisconsin outlaw grenades? Do you have the specific State law? Just so you know grenades don't prove do be very good weapons for self defense. On the other hand the police seem to use handguns quite effectively for the purpose of self defense.

David

I respect her or anyones decision not to own or keep a firearm. It is however stories like these which makes the argument against firearms for defense for those who want them as ridicules as arguments against fire alarms, CO detectors, storm shelters, seat belts, insurance, etc.

that?

Who are you to tell me whether grenade launchers are suitable or not for my self defense? You might see yourself as the end all of what constitutes an adequate defense, but that's kind of the problem, isn't it?

Police often use handguns for the purpose of self defense, and they also kill a number of unarmed humans every year, year after year. They also seem to have a pretty good record of beating legal repercussions for the latter.

You may wish to view the world as black and white, but I don't. I see lots of grays.

It's not me doing it. If you have all the necessary permits and decide to use one for self defense you are free to do so. Most people practice with weapons they intend to use for self defense purposes, that might prove problematic with a greande launcher. I never said that the victim in this case didn't have the means to defend herself. I simply pointed out that PEOPLE (generic reference for humans) should have the means to defend themselves if they so choose, especially considering the fact that cases such as this one happen way to often, with the police unable to arrive in time or not dispatched properly or at all. I agree with you the police kill far to many unarmed people, concealed carry permit holders have a much better safety record with firearms than do the police.

David

They aren't covered under any pending legislation that I'm aware of. If you have something to contribute go ahead.


David

Toughen up.

A hand grenade makes an excellent defense against a chokehold. You just need nerves of steel and a steady hand. Oh, and don't loose that pin!

and a permanent non paid vacation for this genius statement:

The dispatcher failed to call the number back as required under the department's policy, Norwick said.

Norwick said he was investigating the incident and reviewing whether policies should be changed and employees should be disciplined. But he also said, "I don't think there's anything to apologize for at this time."

Chief Wray sure seemed to be upfront about it though.

She DID have the means available. She was over 21, living in her own apartment. There was nothing to prevent her from owning a weapon.

Fuck you.

I said people should have the means. This story reinforces why.

David

Zimmermann, 21, was found slain in her apartment in an apparently random crime. Police believe someone broke into her apartment before killing her.

Here's what you meant to say:

People are RESPONSIBLE for their own safety.
The police are not RESPONSIBLE for protecting anyone.
This individual failed to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for her own safety.
Tough bananas on her.

I simply can't imagine how you -- or any of your cohort hereabouts -- could say anything else.

I said what I meant to say. Nothing more nothing less. Please don't make things up and say that I meant to say them. You don't like it at all when people do it to you, and I would appreciate the same consideration. BTW, George St. Pierre beat Matt Sera for the Welterweight UFC belt I was very proud of the French Canadian. He is one of the best very and represents your country quite well.

David

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You just seem to be having a lot of trouble actually understanding what people are saying in threads here ...

in case someone went wacko there and shot the place up. Or maybe she left it in her car, in case someone tried to carjack her.

I know, I know. We should have $10 guns so people can have one in every room of the house.

Tragic. It's too bad we don't have a society that doesn't breed so many of these assholes.

I don't have all the facts. As strict as they are about disconnect procedures, I can't imagine it being intentional. Regardless, there will always be mistakes. We can't base law and policy on mistakes. What fuels the underlying sickness in our society, otoh, we can do something about that and the first thing is to remove the notion that people should ever kill each other.

that there is no circumstance in which one human being should kill another?

None?!

I talked to a woman once who said she couldn't imagine shooting someone if that was the only way to save her daughter. (And she'd had some experience with having her young daughter threatened.) I thought she was an aberration with a mental defect, but I was polite enough not to say so.

Please elaborate.

And oh my god don't ever get between me and my children and grandchildren.

But I think it just gets taken to extremes in this country. I think that we even have debates about when you get to kill someone is indicative of exactly what I'm talking about. When you give yourself permission to kill in this instance or that, next thing you know you're drunk and shooting somebody for cutting you off. I'd much rather have every person get real physical self-defense training than this continual debate about increasing guns all over the place.

but we broadly agree on there being one.

I just started a thread on the insane, IMNSHO, blurring of that line.

I think that people should have the legal means to reasonable weapons for self defense and that those weapons should be a personal choice. If you want a baseball bat that's fine. If a guy in a wheelchair wants a handgun that's fine too.

David

You started off a whole half a sentence with reasonable sounding stuff then it diverged into "next thing you know people will be getting drunk and doing road rage." You know better.

It isn't an issue of "real physical self defense training" it's a matter of it not being enough in the modern world. For all the advantage that a firearm gives a criminal, it gives potential victims a far greater relative advantage. A world without guns is a world ruled by brute force wielded by strong men. In a society without guns, women, children and the elderly have to depend on big strong men to protect them from the big strong men that have chosen to become criminals. This is not going to be a feminist society. Nor an individualist one- a strong young man is only really safe in a group because a group of men can easily overpower him.

In a society with guns, everyone is placed on a level playing field in terms of having adequate strength. Even numbers aren't the same guarantee of safety for the criminals that they once were. It only takes one armed victim to ruin a criminal's career.

Criminals have the advantage of choosing who they go after and when. They aren't going to pick someone who can clearly kick their asses unarmed so they will probably seek out weaker members of society. Old people, small women, Bernie Goetz. People that look like they can't fight back. They will probably arm themselves as well for an additional advantage.

The advantage that the rest of society has is that there are far more of us than there are criminals. Even if only a small number of us go armed, we create a massive risk for violent criminals. The crime this prevents frees police up to devote more effort to criminals that aren't deterred. It's the same effect as hiring extra cops, only cheaper.

The dispatcher didn't make a call back which is standard procedure.

David

So, no, they didn't admit anything really. They just stated there was no call-back and no officer dispatched.

That's the nice thing about natural, inherent, inalienable rights they are all Pro-Choice.

IMO, a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is most likely to survive if citizens exercise ALL their inalienable rights.

and that's where I don't get it, DC being the first example that comes to mind.

Nervewracking but better, since the caller survived.

The female caller had an intruder in the house and the dispatcher kept telling her that help was "right around the corner". The dispatcher remarked that it had only been 2 minutes since the call started, when in fact the time record showed just past 4 minutes.

Yes, the police made it there.....IIRC.......at around the 6 minute mark.........



......2 minutes after the caller shot the intruder.


Anyone remember that thread?

Interesting isn't it.

David

the police are minutes away.

If you live in a very small town like I do, they can be MANY minutes away.

Nope. And a search doesn't find it.

And I don't know what your little friend was wanting anyone to say, but maybe if you'd do a little better than your usual lazy assertion that something exists and actually offer some directions to it, I could help y'all out.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=138185

Hope that clears it up.

David

A news report of an incident. Fascinating.

What would you people like someone to say about it?

Here's what I'd say:

The woman, who lives in a townhouse, had been complaining about her former boyfriend for months.

She had filed repeated complaints, said he slashed her tires and engaged in a confrontation at a Legion Hall.

She said that he warned her it wasn't not over yet.

Exactly why was he wandering around subject to no constraints?

It had been going on for months, she had filed repeated complaints, there had been ample opportunity to have an order of some sort made requiring him to refrain from contact with her, and there had been ample opportunity to deprive him of his liberty if he violated the order.

Other than that -- what? If she had a reasonable fear that she was about to be killed or seriously injured, then she apparently acted lawfully, and apparently the appropriate authorities were satisfied of that.

Frankly I would say that shutting yourself in a bedroom closet is not the smartest way to avoid someone who is likely trying to hurt you, and that since there was apparently a back and front door to her townhouse it might have made considerably more sense to go out the one he wasn't coming in, but I don't know the circumstances, so I won't guess. I might wonder whether if she hadn't had a firearm that is what she would have done, and think that she could be lucky that he didn't have a firearm and shoot first.

You said you couldn't remember it. I did and found it and posted a link to it. I don't care what people say about it, I just wanted to give people the frame of reference. I think the victim was upstairs when the assailant broke in. So she locked herself in the bedroom then in the closet then called 911. She was still on the phone with 911 when he broke down both doors and began strangling her, at which point she decided to shoot him. She did have a restraining order against him. Does Canada lock men up if a woman files a complaint? What constraints does Canada put on men when a woman files a complaint of harassment?

David

The link posted is the story referenced by Tejas in post 26.
You said you couldn't remember it.

NO I DID NOT.

The question was: "Anyone remember that thread?"
And the answer was: "Nope."

My question was about this alleged thread where someone didn't do whatever someone was supposed to do.


She did have a restraining order against him.

You saw this in the article somewhere? I didn't. One would have thought that if this was the case, she would have told the 911 dispatcher, instead of saying "I've been having a lot of problems with him...", or, if she did, the article might have mentioned it.


She was still on the phone with 911 when he broke down both doors and began strangling her

If you have some source other than the article you have linked to, you should cite it. That does not appear in the article.


Does Canada lock men up if a woman files a complaint?

Well it kinda depends on what the complaint is about, eh? If it's about the commission of a criminal offence and the complaint appears credible, then a charge is laid, and the accused released on a recognizance that includes refraining from contact and staying more than a certain distance away, or is held for a bail hearing and possibly released on similar conditions.

What constraints does Canada put on men when a woman files a complaint of harassment?

See above, in the case of a criminal offence (e.g. death threats, assault).

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec264.html

Criminal Code
PART VIII: OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION
Motor Vehicles, Vessels and Aircraft (??)

Criminal harassment

264. (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

Prohibited conduct

(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of

(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

Punishment

(3) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating factor that, at the time the offence was committed, the person contravened

(a) the terms or conditions of an order made pursuant to section 161 or a recognizance entered into pursuant to section 810, 810.1 or 810.2; or
(b) the terms or conditions of any other order or recognizance made or entered into under the common law or a provision of this or any other Act of Parliament or of a province that is similar in effect to an order or recognizance referred to in paragraph (a).

Reasons

(5) Where the court is satisfied of the existence of an aggravating factor referred to in subsection (4), but decides not to give effect to it for sentencing purposes, the court shall give reasons for its decision.


Criminal Code
PART XXVII: SUMMARY CONVICTIONS
Sureties to Keep the Peace

Where injury or damage feared

810. (1) An information may be laid before a justice by or on behalf of any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will cause personal injury to him or her or to his or her spouse or common-law partner or child or will damage his or her property.

Duty of justice

(2) A justice who receives an information under subsection (1) shall cause the parties to appear before him or before a summary conviction court having jurisdiction in the same territorial division.

Adjudication

(3) The justice or the summary conviction court before which the parties appear may, if satisfied by the evidence adduced that the person on whose behalf the information was laid has reasonable grounds for his or her fears,

(a) order that the defendant enter into a recognizance, with or without sureties, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for any period that does not exceed twelve months, and comply with such other reasonable conditions prescribed in the recognizance, including the conditions set out in subsections (3.1) and (3.2), as the court considers desirable for securing the good conduct of the defendant; or
(b) commit the defendant to prison for a term not exceeding twelve months if he or she fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.

Conditions

(3.1) Before making an order under subsection (3), the justice or the summary conviction court shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of the defendant or of any other person, to include as a condition of the recognizance that the defendant be prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, for any period specified in the recognizance and, where the justice or summary conviction court decides that it is so desirable, the justice or summary conviction court shall add such a condition to the recognizance.

... (3.2) Before making an order under subsection (3), the justice or the summary conviction court shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of the informant, of the person on whose behalf the information was laid or of that person’s spouse or common-law partner or child, as the case may be, to add either or both of the following conditions to the recognizance, namely, a condition

(a) prohibiting the defendant from being at, or within a distance specified in the recognizance from, a place specified in the recognizance where the person on whose behalf the information was laid or that person’s spouse or common-law partner or child, as the case may be, is regularly found; and
(b) prohibiting the defendant from communicating, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, with the person on whose behalf the information was laid or that person’s spouse or common-law partner or child, as the case may be. ...


Criminal Code
PART XXVII: SUMMARY CONVICTIONS
Sureties to Keep the Peace

Breach of recognizance

811. A person bound by a recognizance under section 83.3, 810, 810.01, 810.1 or 810.2 who commits a breach of the recognizance is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

So, if there was a recognizance ("peace bond") in place, violating it would be an offence.

A person could be charged with the offence of harassment regardless of whether a recognizance was in place.

The link was just one of the stories about this incident, I had read several. Sorry for the confusion.

David