A man identified by employees as a former maintenance worker opened fire inside a Detroit medical facility, sending screaming workers and visitors rushing for the doors just moments before the building erupted in flames.
Crews digging through the gutted Park Medical Centers building recovered the remains of a man and woman hours after the Tuesday morning blaze, Detroit police said in a statement.
Authorities did not release the identities of the dead, pending autopsies, but police had been searching for 35-year-old medical assistant Sharita Williams and the fired maintenance worker, who relatives said was her ex-boyfriend.
Williams' mother, Antha Williams-Hill, told The Associated Press that one of her daughter's co-workers told her that the man threatened her daughter inside.
"He said, 'You think I'm playing with you?'" Williams-Hill said. "He told the other girl, 'I think you better get out of here.' The girl left and said she then heard two shots."
Last week, Sharita Williams was granted a personal protection order against the man, according to Wayne County Court records.
She said her daughter had been dating the married maintenance man for more than a year, but their relationship was rocky and Sharita eventually began seeing someone else. She even moved out of the city and into a Detroit suburb to get away from him. He refused to leave her alone, Williams-Hill said.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Detroit Medical Center Destroyed by Fire - Two Shot Dead
Local news reports
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is terribly tragic. I would have recommended that the woman relocate several hours away.
ReplyDeleteJealous men like this always issue threats before they act. We need laws that enable the state to incarcerate such men -- after they have been stalking and making threats -- before they act.
This isn't about guns. It is about taking a dangerous person off the streets.
It certainly is about guns because sickos like this who don't have guns punch their women around, sometimes put them in the hospital but when they have guns, they kill them.
DeleteYes, no woman has ever been killed with fist, a brick, a bat, a knife, etc. Only guns.
DeleteI can't believe you actually wrote that inane bullshit. I won't bother to honor it with a serious response. You know what I'd say anyway.
DeleteYes, I wrote it. And I stand by my smart assery, because it's really the only response you deserved. The Anonymous commenter pointed to what he thought was a weakness in the system that needed to be addressed and suggested that we discuss addressing that issue that is the root cause rather than addressing only the instrument used.
DeleteThis guy burned the medical center down on their heads after shooting the lady. With him showing up ready to do that, do you seriously think the lack of a gun would have stopped him? He would have just stabbed or or done something else, or possibly tied her up, leading to one of the most horrifying deaths possible.
But what was your response? That the guns are the issue because wife-beaters without guns just "punch their women around, sometimes put them in the hospital." But, you say, if they have guns, they kill them.
You are the one who, in refusing to address weak laws against stalking and threatening, introduced a foolish and false dichotomy saying that wife-beaters with guns killed their women and those without guns only hurt them minorly, or sometimes put them in the hospital.
All I did was highlight and ridicule your false dichotomy. All inanity and bullshit was of thine own excreting; I but made mudpies of it to lob back.
The weak laws that you don't want to address are those which allow known wife-beaters to buy and own guns legally.
DeleteYou just want to take their guns away, Mikeb. I want to see them jailed--if there's good cause--until trial. Which of those two would be more effective?
DeleteIsn't denying people bail in violation of one of their rights? What about those who are falsely accused, they'd need to prove their innocence at trial? You'd keep them in jail meantime?
DeleteNo, I'm afraid disarming them is the only way to go. If the trial doesn't go their way, it becomes permanent.
Judges can and do deny bail when they determine that someone is a danger to the community. Greg is calling for an amendment to either law or practice so that bail is denied if the evidence indicates to the judge that someone is a wife beater and a danger to at least that member of the community.
DeleteYou ask if this would be a violation of their rights. No. The Constitution protects your right not to be charged excessive bail, but that only kicks in when bail is offered or allowed. The laws of the federal and state governments determine when bail is appropriate and what level of evidence must support decisions to deny bail. What Greg suggests would fall under these rules.
You, on the other hand, suggest that we should preemptively strip someone of one of their rights, leaving the potentially innocent person defenseless, but doing nothing to prevent a real abuser from stealing a gun, buying one off a thug, or just using a knife or club, and going to kill his wife.
If someone makes threats against another, that incident should be investigated. If there's evidence to support a charge, the person should be held until trial. Bail might be appropriate, but yes, the accused should be disarmed until a verdict is reached, provided that the charges and evidence warrant it.
DeleteWhat I'm saying here is that wife beaters should be made to understand that the law will take their threats and actions seriously, rather than issuing an order of protection and leaving it there.
But that's not what you're advocating. You want all of us to have to show that we're not wife beaters before we can be armed.
Greg, suddenly you're sounding more reasonable than Tennessean (didn't it used to be Tennesseean?).
DeleteI think where you and I can agree, Greg, is that domestic abuse should be taken more seriously than it currently is. Am I right.
Yes, domestic abuse must be taken more seriously--by which I mean physical abuse. Verbal abuse is distasteful, but not a crime. But anyone who beats up a partner should face charges. We hold people without bail all the time when there's good cause to believe that the person is an immediate danger to the community. That's what a bail hearing is for. I'm speculating here, so the lawyers among us can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd imagine that a judge could look at injuries done to a domestic partner and conclude that the accused is probably too dangerous to be let out until trial. All of this is due process within our current system.
DeleteWhat I don't support is the idea that I have to show that I'm not an abuser to exercise my rights. That kind of system would be "guilty until proven innocent."
Mikeb, this is about putting bad men in jail. If this man earned an order of protection, he earned time locked up till trial. But according to your comment, as long as he just beats up a woman and doesn't kill her with a gun, that's acceptable. I don't accept that.
ReplyDelete"But according to your comment, as long as he just beats up a woman and doesn't kill her with a gun, that's acceptable." Fuck you, Greg. You know goddamn well that's not what I fucking said.
ReplyDeleteMikeb, you get comments like that when you so consistently refuse to acknowledge the valid points that we make or when you make snide remarks about all of us.
DeleteGee, that was about as uncivil as anything Kurt ever said about you, Mike.
DeleteI don't think so, T. A "fuck you" is not the same as calling people vile names. Besides, who asked you?
DeleteLets see, the vile names were asshole--a little bit stronger than jerk, but pretty common--and calling you "filth." I'll admit that "filth" isn't a common name to call someone, but it's still just calling someone a simple name. Truly vile name calling might involve appellations regarding parentage combined with creative references to scatological and animalistic fetishes.
DeleteSo, true, you got called names. It's not really any worse than the name calling and stereotyping you've done, along with calling us liars, etc.
As for who asked me--nobody. I was just tossing in my 2 cents on the open forum you've made available. Whether you approve this comment or moderate it out, I find it Hilarious that you responded to me with "Who asked you?"
Mikeb, the phrase, fuck you, isn't an invitation for a pleasurable evening. It expresses the desire of the speaker to rape the person addressed. When you call someone a liar, you are saying that that person is not worthy to participate in intellectual debate. You are denying the validity of what that person thinks. That's much worse than labelling the person a jerk or asshole or filth.
DeleteThis is the second time you'd used "fuck" in reference to me. You should recall that I was willing to address your side in rational and civil terms until you people refused to return the same courtesy. My hatred of gun control freaks comes from experience.
I don't remember the last time, but this time you got the big "fuck you" because you said I found violence against women acceptable as long is it wasn't done with a gun. That's a flat out lie, but will you admit it? No. Will you blame it on me? Yes. You had to say that because I "consistently refuse to acknowledge the valid points."
DeletePersonal responsibility demands that you, 1. admit you said something false, and 2. admit it was your doing, no one else's.
Mikeb, you rarely, if ever, express any concern over violence that doesn't involve a gun. Your obsession with guns blinds you to the reality that violent people will cause harm, regardless of the tools that they use. What is more, rather than discussing reasonable solutions--such as, for example, jailing people who make violent threats--you go on and on about restricting gun rights.
DeleteWhen you're ready to be reasonable, I'll be around.
Greg, aren't you reading Kurt's comments. The cancer researcher is not at fault for ignoring AIDS.
DeleteBut cancer cells don't turn into AIDS to avoid being killed by chemo.
DeleteHowever, gun criminals switch to knives and clubs if they think that using a gun will bring the law down on them harder.
Not relevant, since the one has little to do with the other (Karposi's sarcoma being an exception). What I've said to you here and elsewhere is that separating out gun violence from all kinds of violence is silly. Violent people will be violent, no matter what tool is available to them. Saying that a person will only be beaten up but not killed in the absence of guns is a pathetic thing to take comfort in.
Delete