Hard to believe, but apparently true, and with a predictable result.

Note who is described as the “victim” by the reporter.

[url=http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jun02/55103.asp]Milwaukee Journal[/url]

Mike

Note that the shootee is also referred to as the "suspect".  That's their version of balanced reporting, I guess.

He IS a victim of his own insanity, or his own stupidity.

I guess this guy did not know "never bring a knife to a gun fight"

It sounds like a simple case of attempted suicide.  [%|]

Should this surprise anyone. Milwaukee, WI is bastion of liberal in Wisconsin.

Anyone know how to get an e-mail to this idiot reporter???
It seems to me that the "victim" didn't get hurt and that the "suspect" is in the hospital.
Christ, what do we have to do to get a straight story???

well, DUH!  Milwaukee = urban center (otherwise known as a city) Leftists can't stand to live in rural areas, so where do you think they congregate?  Yup, you guessed it, in the cities.  Hell, the only reason CCW didn't pass here in MO was because the counties around KC and St. Louis didn't pass it.  Almost EVERY other county in the state said 'yes'.

Does this make any sense to you? Between stuff like this, the Pledge of Allegiance debacle, and sueing McDonalds for selling fatty foods I'm really getting worried about this country.

Greenfield - A man who tried to rob a Greenfield gun shop at knifepoint Thursday afternoon was shot in the chest by the shop owner, police said.

The victim, identified only as a 57-year-old Greenfield man, was taken to Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital in Wauwatosa, according to police.

Police have yet to interview the victim because the shooting left him unconscious, Detective Sgt. Paul Schlecht said.

Schlecht said later Thursday that the man's wound was not life threatening. The man's condition was not available Thursday evening from Froedtert.

Schlecht said the shooting took place at about 3 p.m. inside Buckhorn Guns, one of four businesses located in a plaza in the 2700 block of W. Ramsey Ave.

The parking lot of the plaza was surrounded by yellow police tape Thursday afternoon as police investigated the shooting.

Schlecht said he did not know what the suspect demanded but said there is nothing to indicate the account of the incident that the store owner gave police was not true.

He said the store owner, 44, shot the man once in the chest and that apparently no one else was inside the store when the shooting took place. The store owner was not injured.

Schlecht said the case is being referred to the Milwaukee County district attorney's office, which will review the actions of the suspect and the shop owner. A case review could happen today, he said.

Jessica Hansen of the Journal Sentinel staff contributed to this report.



The victim is called the guy that was shot and the store owner who was being robbed is the (implied) perpetrator???!!!!????!!! Yet the report continues to say that "there is nothing to indicate the account of the incident that the store owner gave police was not true". If so, why is the robber referred to as the victim? THe liberal media is doing their best to turn this country into a socialist state as rapidly as possible. When will people start to use common sense and take responsibility for their own actions? THe media knows that their wording works on a very subconcious level to slowly turn the opinions and mindset of their readers/watchers (for those that aren't smart enough to read and think for themselves). This kind of stuff just cranks me up! People don't want to think for themselves anymore, they don't want to "earn" what they want (when they can sue for it). And the legal profession (don't forget they "practice" law), looks at it as a way to make more money and ingrain themselves further into society. Like I always say... There is a fixed amount of intelligence on the planet... the population is growing.

To contact the future victim of mass complaints (JAMAAL ABDUL-ALIM of the Journal Sentinel staff), point your aggression to:

[email protected]


Nuckles.   [smash]

Hey wait, where did they refer to the shop owner as a suspect?

"did not know what the [b]suspect[/b] demanded"

as in the suspect is the badguy who came in with a knife and demanded something

"...which will review the actions of the [b]suspect[/b] and the [b]shop owner[/b]."

Thus they are not the same person

Although they do refer to the crook as the victim severa times. Yeah, victim of absolute stupidity. This guy is even dumber then the one who went in to a gunshop with a sherrif's deputy inside, announced a robbery, fired into the celing, and was promptly filled with lead. Kinda wish he would have died, or at least been shot in the nuts, so he couldn't breed.

study your UK logic: the victim is always the perpetrator and the suspect is the defender...
Self defense is against the law and you are considered a vigilante and therefore you go to jail....

Here is a copy of the letter i sent to the author of the article:

Mr. ABDUL-ALIM,

I read your online article: Man shot during robbery, police say, with much interest. I must say that there was a error in your reporting:

"A man who tried to rob a Greenfield gun shop at knifepoint Thursday afternoon was shot in the chest by the shop owner, police said.

The victim, identified only as a 57-year-old Greenfield man, was taken to Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital in Wauwatosa, according to police."

The store owner was lawfully defending himself and anyone else who might have been in the store at the time. If you question the validity of this statement, check the Wisconsin law which I have enclosed below.

As a reporter you have an obligation to report the facts of the case, not to further your own agenda or beliefs.

Information about Wisconsin law was gathered from: http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=74118&infobase=stats.nfo&jump=ch.%20939

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.  

939.48(1)      
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person.  The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.  The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

939.48(2)
     
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a)    
(a)  A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.  In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(b)      
(b)  The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(c)      
(c)  A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

Cont.

Cont.
939.48(3)      
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.

939.48(4)      
(4) A person is privileged to defend a third person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the third person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the third person.

Sean Vanover

typical liberals.  make the bad guy sound like a victim and then have articals on how bad guns are.  

Unfortunately his wound was non life threatening [:(]...thinning of the herds is a good thing![:)]

Well, I guess my letter to [email protected] (Patrick Stiegman), [email protected] (Jessica Hansen) and [email protected] (JAMAAL ABDUL-ALIM) must have hit a nerve.
And yes, I toned down the language.....
 
My reply to the article:
You have to be kidding me!  How much more anti-freedom and anti-firearm can
you people be?
This is one of the WORST cases of "my agenda" reporting that I have seen in
a LONG TIME.

This guy shows up to fucking ROB (that's STEAL, RIP-OFF) someone of their
property with a knife (THAT'S A DEADLY WEAPON, kind of like a box cutter)
and is shot by a law abiding CITIZEN who was protecting himself and his
property and you crayons have the gall to call the thief a VICTIM?
What the fuck is wrong with this picture? Victim of what? His own stupidity?
Being a fucking clueless moron?

Let's try this again, ok.

Greenfield - A man who tried to rob a Greenfield gun shop at knifepoint
Thursday afternoon was shot in the chest by the shop owner, police said.

The fucking scum-sucking dreg of humanity oxygen wasting thief, identified
only as a 57-year-old Greenfield man, was taken to Froedtert Memorial
Lutheran Hospital in Wauwatosa, according to police.

Police have yet to interview the fucking scum-sucking dreg of humanity
oxygen wasting thief because the shooting left him unconscious, Detective
Sgt. Paul Schlecht said.

In a related news item the store owner is going to purchase a larger caliber
handgun and is going to take a firearms marksman course so that next time
when this happens..well, so there won't be a "next time".

Here is JAMAAL ABDUL-ALIM's lame-assed response:

Main Entry: vic·tim

Pronunciation: 'vik-t&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English vyctym, from Latin victima; perhaps akin to
Old High German wIh holy
Date: 15th century
1 : a living being sacrificed to a deity or in the performance of a
religious rite
2 : one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or
agent : as a (1) : one
that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various
conditions victim> (2) : one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or
mistreatment b : one that is
tricked or duped

Man, you guys are being a bit hypersensative. Really.

Like the definition says. The robber is the victim of a gun shot wound. Much like one might be a victim of an auto crash or my sister is a victim of rampant stupidity.

I read this and it didn't seem to me that the store owner was made out to be evil or anything.

It was posted on Fark with a "Hero" tag I think.

[b]Schlecht said he did not know what the suspect demanded but said there is nothing to indicate the account of the incident that the store owner gave police was not true.[/b]

He is called the victim twice and a suspect once, what does that make him? It makes the reporter look stupid.

Bill

I guess the moral of the story is for legal gun owners to practice double taps while operating their legal firearms in a lawful manner. This way we will eliminate victims and make room for the deceased.

Sorry, this stuff gets to me.

i wouldve shot him dead. fuck the asshole. i hope he dies in the hospital.

and this year's darwin award recipiant...

My response to him:

Victim: The person who is the object of a crime or tort, as the victim of robbery is the person being robbed. Person who court determines gas suffered pecuniary damages as result of defendants criminal activities; that person may be individuals, public or private corporation, government, partnership, or unincorporated association.

Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th edition 1990, Pg. 1567.

Criminal: One who has committed a criminal offense; one who has been legally convicted of a crime; one adjudged guilty of crime.

Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th edition 1990, Pg. 372.

Perpetrator: Generally, this term denotes the person who actually commits a crime or delict, or by whose immediate agency does.

Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th edition 1990, Pg. 1140

The person you identified as the victim does not meet the criteria set forth in Blacks law dictionary. In actuality he does not meet the criteria set forth in your ancient dictionary.

He does however meet the criteria as a criminal and perpetrator, as defined by Blacks law dictinionary. Again, I say report the facts, do not further your own agenda.

Also, please take the time to respond without chain letters, I know a few people who got the exact same response that I did.

Sean Vanover

I stand corrected

Actually the Fark tag was -

[img]http://www.ar15.com/members/albums/flashman%2Fdumbass%2Ejpg[/img]

Mike

it would be funnier if the "suspect" had drilled the "victim" in the chest with a deerslug. it doesnt say that he didnt use a deerslug, but being he survived i would venture to guess it was a pistol or birdshot

I stand corrected.

Shit! Twice in one thread. I need a cup of coffee.

The writer seems to have a bias against self defense:

[url]http://www.jsonline.com/news/Metro/jun02/53638.asp[/url]

"The tavern owner, Jack Moga, 67, told police he shot Bates one "millisecond" before Bates fired his own gun. Prosecutors said Moga will not be charged because they cannot show the shooting was unjustified."

Don't you just love the use of negatives? "They cannot show the shooting was unjustified."  Could have just said "Police said the shooting was justified." Instead he had to use a combination of negative words that make it seem like "Darn it, the police didn't have enough proof to charge the tavern owner for self defense".