http://www.wisn.com/news/At-least-7-peo ... index.html

WISN 12 News has learned that a mass shooting has taken place near the Brookfield Square Mall.

Officials said this is a "mass casualty" situation and that the scene is not secured.

To follow our live breaking news coverage of this story, CLICK HERE.

Multiple roads in the area are blocked off.

Area hospitals told 12 News they have been put on alert.

An official with Froedert Hospital said they have received seven patients so far.

Flight for Life has landed near the mall.

Witnesses described people crying near the Azana Spa, which is near the mall.

So tired of this shit...

It's sick assholes like this that will erode our 2nd amendment rights.

Ugh

Not this again...

And what the hell is up in Wisconsin? Two of these in as many months?

It's the water. No fluoride in some towns.

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/21/163351149 ... onsin-mall

Follow up:
3 dead, 4 wounded.
Shooter, who had a restraining order against him, also dead.
"Domestic disturbance" shooting.

Also with the restraining order was an order that he surrender all his firearms to the sheriff. The talking heads were stressing that this was done with an "automatic pistol". It seems the court knew he had firearms did they try to impound them? Or were they working on the honor system?
Another tragedy .

Clearly not one of the bullet proof restraining orders.

beto wrote:Also with the restraining order was an order that he surrender all his firearms to the sheriff. The talking heads were stressing that this was done with an "automatic pistol". It seems the court knew he had firearms did they try to impound them? Or were they working on the honor system?
Another tragedy .

Honor system. Too many unregistered guns. A court might realize you have weapons, but there's no way to know which ones and how many. Also, expect more and more of these court orders. It's de rigueur in domestic courts these days.

OldScratch wrote:

beto wrote:Also with the restraining order was an order that he surrender all his firearms to the sheriff. The talking heads were stressing that this was done with an "automatic pistol". It seems the court knew he had firearms did they try to impound them? Or were they working on the honor system?
Another tragedy .

Honor system. Too many unregistered guns. A court might realize you have weapons, but there's no way to know which ones and how many. Also, expect more and more of these court orders. It's de rigueur in domestic courts these days.

It's a tragedy, yes, but it's a price we pay for freedom. Guns shouldn't be registered. It's the last step before confiscation.

I also hate how this erodes our freedom.

This is the price we pay for inadequate funding and training of law enforcement agencies.

Fukshot wrote:This is the price we pay for inadequate funding and training of law enforcement agencies.

You got to be kidding. Law enforcement agencies, in general, are among the best and most consistently funded in gov't. Sure there's exceptions like Detroit and some other localities, but most departments have myriad sources of funding including federal grants and asset forfeitures. The latter has been a boon to LE agencies for almost thirty years now.

The fact is there's little or no will to deploy police officers to confiscate firearms under such orders up to this point. I know of one person who's blown off such a court order. The police here already have special undercover teams to handle felons with guns and those guys run overtime. Sending police around to confiscate guns that may or may not be there is going to be a mess.

I am speculating, but with some evidence, that they knew he had a gun or guns. It was his wife who filed the restraining order. If law enforcement made it a policy to immediately, at the time of the temporary order get a search warrant for firearms. A LEO accompanies the culprit , gives him a chance to surrender his (or rarely hers) guns and then searches the premises. If a gun is found, go straight to jail and do not pass go.
No registration of firearms needed, just the LEOs acting on intelligence. AND taking these restraining orders seriously.

What is "intelligence"? Hearsay evidence? My ex-sister-in-law got a restraining order on my then 75-year-old mother a few years back in the process of divorcing my brother. The judge granted it on hearsay evidence basically. And if she had said my mother had a gun, you would have the police show up with a warrant to search my mother's home? On hearsay?

Also, when a restraining order is issued, the enjoined party is seldom present, so there won't be any accompanying him or her. The enjoined party would likely be entitled to some kind of notification to turn over any weapons, say 48 hours for instance, and then you'd have to send a posse out if he didn't. All that's going to take time and money. It's a real quagmire, though in theory I agree with you.

If the restraining order is BS, then the person who is being enjoined against needs to show up, with council, & fight the order. When I had a BS one attempted against me (~20 years ago now) that's what I did. If people do not stand up for their rights, it's hard to do it for them.

Part of the problem is that the process is almost by rote for the courts. They need to take the issuance of restraining orders seriously and the local LEOs need to take enforcing them seriously.

As for firearms, I agree with Beto - a search warrant should be issued as part of the restraining order and the enjoined party should be escorted immediately to his or her home and forced to surrender any firearms. There are so many guns in circulation that the presumption needs to be there are firearms in the enjoined party's home and that they will not be voluntarily surrendered. That needs to be local LEO's job. The RO needs to be filed immediately with the agencies doing background checks as well. If a person fails a background check due to a restraining order they need to be arrested for breaking that restraining order.

I have very firm beliefs on this. I grew up in a fairly small town that was incorporated in 1872. In that time exactly one police officer has died in the line of duty. Care to guess what kind of call he was on?

OldScratch wrote:

Fukshot wrote:This is the price we pay for inadequate funding and training of law enforcement agencies.

You got to be kidding. Law enforcement agencies, in general, are among the best and most consistently funded in gov't. Sure there's exceptions like Detroit and some other localities, but most departments have myriad sources of funding including federal grants and asset forfeitures. The latter has been a boon to LE agencies for almost thirty years now.

The fact is there's little or no will to deploy police officers to confiscate firearms under such orders up to this point. I know of one person who's blown off such a court order. The police here already have special undercover teams to handle felons with guns and those guys run overtime. Sending police around to confiscate guns that may or may not be there is going to be a mess.

I wasn't clear. I mean funding for actual staff and well-rounded training with a priority on investigation. In contrast, the current funding glut for many police forces (mostly smaller ones) comes in the form of targeted funding for military-style equipment and tactics training, but not for regular old-school officers on the street trained to pay attention and draw conclusions from observations.

beto wrote:I am speculating, but with some evidence, that they knew he had a gun or guns. It was his wife who filed the restraining order. If law enforcement made it a policy to immediately, at the time of the temporary order get a search warrant for firearms. A LEO accompanies the culprit , gives him a chance to surrender his (or rarely hers) guns and then searches the premises. If a gun is found, go straight to jail and do not pass go.
No registration of firearms needed, just the LEOs acting on intelligence. AND taking these restraining orders seriously.

To have enough police to do this, you would have to live in a police state. Can you imagine the frenzy the NRA could whip their followers into the first time a court ordered one of these operations? And if the respondent happened to be against a serious nut-case, it would be a Ruby Ridge style blood bath.

Fukshot wrote:This is the price we pay for inadequate funding and training of law enforcement agencies.

They definitely aren't underfunded, if anything they are over-funded, buying new crap constantly, and militarizing our police.

I'm completely against it.

Improperly trained, yes.

You know when our own police has looser ROEs than our military does in Afghanistan, something is majorly wrong.

ROE?

Fukshot wrote:ROE?

Rules of Engagement.

Collector1337 wrote:

Fukshot wrote:ROE?

Rules of Engagement.

Aha! Thanks

Fukshot wrote:ROE?

Rules of Engagement.

There is a proposal law by Gwen Moore Dem of Milwaukee (State Senate) that would require the Sheriffs Department to follow up on restraining orders to try to confiscate firearms in domestic violence restraining orders. This guy did threaten his wife with a pistol previously and that was part of the court record. He shot her with another that he purchased from a private party just prior to the shooting. The Milwaukee Sheriffs department treats these orders as a civil matter and rarely acts on them. The proposed legislation is aimed at that.



By the way there was an "active shooter" incident in Waukesha just a couple hours ago.Don't know what is happening. Maybe there is something in the drinking water

...that he would kill her. It appears she was right.

Chris