Whatever, you would do well to listen to Retired's shame-fueled advice. Assumptions and factually devoid opinions (later attempted to be backed by referenced sources which hilariously only proved MY assertions rather than his) really won't change the fact that the Walworth County Sheriff's Department unjustifiably held the names of two deputies longer than any other piece of information regarding that case, and that in doing so have raised doubts about actions taken and the motives behind them. Although Retired's attempt to distract from his schooling by a more intelligently informed poster (me) is somewhat cute, you'd have to be as averse to logic and reality as Retired is to believe (or care about) the repeated loon-call of "he secretly works with the Gazette!" that has become Retired's conspiratorial last-ditch rallying cry, clung to in desperation now that the realization has dawned that Wisconsin law favors my "personal stake in supporting the Gazette’s opinion of Walworth County", as Retired chooses to phrase it, rather than his own. By the way, nice to see you back here wasting your time on me, Retired, despite your false claims otherwise : )

Whatever536, don’t waste your time trying to deal with this person. It is obvious he/she has a personal stake in supporting the Gazette’s opinion of Walworth County; why else would they post 20 comments on this site in only one place (supporting this story) without making any other comments in other areas.

Hello, Whatever. Your mentioning of the balancing test is rather confusing, for a few reasons. I guess you missed where it was posted: "Sheriff's criminal investigation files are not covered by a blanket exemption from the public records law, but denial of access may be justified on a case-by-case basis"? While I appreciate your attention to details regarding the fact that each information request is judged individually by using numerous factors (which, as with the previous quote concerning this issue, were also posted by me) that are taken into account to decide whether to allow or deny the request to be filled, I can't say your redundancy on the issue has accomplished much other than to bolster my argument which relied partly on that fact that indeed a balancing test is used, rather than Retired's incorrect assumption that the mere existence of an investigation is sole reason enough to justify withholding information. As I've proven (and you've helped reiterate), that is not the case. Regardless of your intentions for posting, Whatever, thanks much for your help!

Thanks retired for countering the rants of "in". It is getting old! There are many policy's in place and there is a balancing test that takes place in any open records release!

As for “the law does not require a response within a specified period of time”, it DOES however state:

"Each authority, upon request for any record, shall, AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AND WITHOUT DELAY, either fill the request or notify the requester of the authority's determination to deny the request in whole or in part and the reasons therefor." - ss. 19.35 (4)(a)

"Requests for public records SHOULD BE GIVEN HIGH PRIORITY." - Wisconsin Public Records Law Compliance Outline, 2007.

In other words, requests are to be dealt with "immediately". I've proven this, just as I've proven that the mere pendency of an investigation is not reason enough to play fast and loose with the public's trust, as the Walworth Sheriff's Department does or as you ignorantly believe they should.

Seeing that you are immune to facts surrounding the law and are only content with your misguided judgment of what the law should be I'll now take the time to sit back and thoroughly enjoy your final acceptance of your having been deservedly schooled. Guess you finally learned your lesson after all. It's just too bad you couldn't have achieved that without sacrificing all of your integrity by running with your tail between your legs and laboring under the delusion that you haven't been completely and correctly rebuked. But hey, if it makes you feel better to believe you're just giving up because you're tired of being right all the time, go ahead. Only adds to my enjoyment. See ya!

I was provided with a somewhat current opinion of the state statue regarding police records from the Attorney General [1988], and my proper response was to provide you further statements by that VERY SAME AG from that VERY SAME YEAR which expounds on and contradicts your quickly found and poorly understood quote. Essentially, I have just proven that Wisconsin State Law, past AG opinions and my own "misguided judgment of what the law should be" are one and the same, and that in fact it is YOU who are wrong for disagreeing with us. My justification is the written records of the State AG from '88, with a supplementary quote from the '84 school board case that further sheds light on conditions for records privacy/release. Please, next time FULLY READ sources, CROSS-REFERENCE those sources, and then possibly in the future you won't again make the unintelligent mistake of LYING about another person's sources, as you've done here with me. OK? The current opinion is something I might try looking up? Too bad for you it's actually quoted in my previous post. To make it easier for you, I'll repost it here:

"Sheriff's criminal investigation files are not covered by a blanket exemption from the public records law, but denial of access may be justified on a case-by-case basis."

"The mere pendency of an investigation or possible prosecution is not determinative. There must be some actual underlying concerns that warrant protection. For example, there may be some of the same types of concerns that have been identified as justifying the secrecy of John Doe proceedings, to wit:

1 keeping a John Doe target from fleeing, or an arrested defendant from knowledge which might cause him to flee

2 preventing defendants from collecting perjured testimony for the trial

3 preventing those interested in thwarting the inquiry and tampering with prospective testimony or secreting evidence

4 freeing witnesses from the threat of immediate retaliation; and/or

5 preventing testimony which may be mistaken or untrue or irrelevant from becoming public."

"The pendency of criminal prosecution or the investigation of incidents which might result in prosecution would in most cases justify denial of inspection on a case-by-case basis. However, if in fact there is not a reasonable basis for these or other legitimate concerns in a particular case then secrecy is not justified even though the matter is pending."

You were provided with the current opinion of the state statue regarding police records from the attorney general [1988] and your response is essentially they are wrong and you are right; and your justification is a case involving a school board that happened in 1984, 4 years prior to the current opinion? You might try looking it up. To make it easier for you, the link is off the Wisconsin freedom of information council’s website…in the same place they detailed “the law does not require a response within a specified period of time” (in reference to a delay in the open records law). Seeing that you are immune to facts surrounding the law and are only content with your misguided judgment of what the law should be I am not going to waste any more of my time with you.

So, Retired, now that your "because there was an investigation" excuse is debunked, tell me... what "actual underlying" or "legitimate concerns" existed? What "clear statutory exception", "limitation under common law", or "overriding public interest" was there to justify the withholding of those two names? I'd love to hear it.

Funny that, in Rock County, their sheriff's department doesn't feel the need to unjustifiably withhold information from the public. I guess we've just been given a clearer picture of how "justice" works in Walworth County.

Sorry, Retired; I made it clear back when you were still lost on my FOIA tangent that this case is covered under the open records law, and that release of such information is covered by Wisconsin law, indeed giving citizens the right to that information. And, as I showed through my cited legal sources, requesters must indeed be given "immediate" response in regards to that information (whether to allow or deny). That was your challenge ("Please provide us the constitutional amendment, US law, state statute, or case law that shows you have the immediate right to names"), and I've now proven it to be true.

Under current law (which was correctly identified by me as Wisonsin Public Records Law...aka ss. 19.31-19.39), law enforcement records are, for the most part, subject at all times to release through request procedures. True, there are exceptions to the rule. However, in reality (and had you done thorough research), you will find that the simple fact that an investigation is ongoing is NOT justification enough on its own to warrant the exclusion of information from public release. But kudos on the attempt at oversimplification!

Under previous State Attorney General Office decisions the following opinion has already been rendered:

"Sheriff's criminal investigation files are not covered by a blanket exemption from the public records law, but denial of access may be justified on a case-by-case basis."

"The mere pendency of an investigation or possible prosecution is not determinative. There must be some actual underlying concerns that warrant protection. For example, there may be some of the same types of concerns that have been identified as justifying the secrecy of John Doe proceedings, to wit:

1 keeping a John Doe target from fleeing, or an arrested defendant from knowledge which might cause him to flee

2 preventing defendants from collecting perjured testimony for the trial

3 preventing those interested in thwarting the inquiry and tampering with prospective testimony or secreting evidence

4 freeing witnesses from the threat of immediate retaliation; and/or

5 preventing testimony which may be mistaken or untrue or irrelevant from becoming public."

"The pendency of criminal prosecution or the investigation of incidents which might result in prosecution would in most cases justify denial of inspection on a case-by-case basis. However, if in fact there is not a reasonable basis for these or other legitimate concerns in a particular case then secrecy is not justified even though the matter is pending."

"The general presumption of our law is that public records shall be open to the public unless there is a clear statutory exception, unless there exists a limitation under the common law, or unless there is an overriding public interest in keeping the public record confidential." - Hathaway v. Green Bay School Dist., 116 Wis. 2d 388, 397, 342 N.W.2d 682 (1984).

You finally posted a fact I have been telling you all along; the release of information (not the right too) is covered by Wisconsin law…now in the famous words of Paul Harvey, here is the rest of the story. Under current law (though not correctly identified by you, the correct reference it is 19.36(2)), for the most part law enforcement records are subject at all times to release “through request procedures” provided by this state statute. However it has always been through case law and legal opinions that further define the statute. “If” the gazette had requested the names through this law in writing (yes oral request is allowed under the law however, to engage further through legal means requires a written request) and at the time decided to pursue action through mandamus for there denial of “7 days too long” (as quoted by you) [an aside, under this law those same 7 days are really 5], the court would have been required to look at previous rulings and opinions to grant access. Under previous State Attorney General Office decisions the following opinion has already been rendered;

“The sheriff as custodian has a right and duty to determine whether there is a public interest in withholding partial or total inspection which is paramount to the stated statutory public interest permitting inspection…and the person seeking inspection can then resort to a mandamus action to test the reason… The pendency of…investigation of incidents which might result in prosecution would in most cases justify denial of inspection.”

As provided for you previously, the shooting by the two officers was under investigation (during the eternally long 7 days). This then meets the requirements of withholding by current law.

As for the correctional officer/sexual abuse case? First, you don't know my reaction to this occurrence, and your childish use of hyperbole that I or the Gazette should raise a "revolt" (implying that our factually justified opinion on this case was such) is unecessary.

Second, the Rock County case was a criminal complaint filed not only after the incident allegedly occurred, but one filed against a presumed innocent officer by a proven guilty inmate. This is not comparable to the cut-and-dry public record case of the shooting of an armed fugitive, due to the threat on his daughter's life, by on-duty deputies.

Also, in the Walworth case, only a criminal investigation was reported. In Rock County, both an internal AND criminal investigation were ordered. Oddly, during the Rock County officer's criminal investigation (still ongoing), it was obviously not felt his name should be withheld due to the investigation, as it was weakley claimed in Walworth. Rock County took a brief 8 days to gather unknown facts and build a case in order to not only justifiably put the officer on probation, but to build a case against him that could hold up in court. In Walworth, no such tasks were at hand. The case involved a current incident, in which all parties were known, and no criminal charges were carried out. All other aspects of the Walworth case were released promptly...save the two officers names. The question remains "why?".

Third, you've expressed your own opinion that governmental agencies should be able to process and release information at their leisure, despite the public's opinions and desires. As you phrased it, "the department was doing its job gathering all the facts and reaching out to outside agencies to provide an impartial investigation. To stop and provide the media names of the officers involved would not have provided the results any sooner...as citizens we need to allow the people we vote and hire to perform the tasks asked of them. Shamelessly making absurd and baseless claims in the media does nothing but discredit the fine people who have stepped forward to accept these challenging positions others care not perform... the nit picking accomplished by the staff of the Gazette article from the “our views” section on this topic was inadequate". Yet now you expect media outcry? You now expect "inadequate nitpicking"? You now expect "baseless" claims that "discredit" people? HA! Your manufactured outrage is hypocritical and sickening, and only goes to show your own pettiness in your self-serving ego trip.

Yes, I'm sure you did get a good laugh; it's all that could be expected from someone "who finds comfort in your perceived level of aloofness". Have you looked up the word "projection" yet, Mr. Dictionary? While you're at it, please look up the term "straw man", as you'll be unable to correctly use it in future discussions without making yourself look more ignorant than you already have: the mentioning of your use of the straw man tactic by me is not a "card" to be played, it is merely an observation of the truth. Likewise, it is not a term of victimization, of me or others, as you've incorrectly claimed in your uneducated (although somewhat impudently cute) misrepresentation.

Before I set about embarrassing you yet again, I have my own question for you:
What's the deal with you repeatedly refering to yourself as "us"? Am I dealing with multiple personalities? Or are you truly that deranged as to believe that there is an audience for you here? Either way, it'd be in your best interest to only speak for yourself, as my sympathies would run deep for anyone who had you as their mouthpiece.

Anyway. First, constitutional amendment and US law plays no part in the release of these two specific names. I've explained this to you already; please don't be obstructively redundant. Repetition of simple facts is how toddlers learn, not retirees.

Second, concerning state statutes showing I have the "immediate" right to names (or even within the 7 day window), you'll be interested to refer to Wisconsin Public Records Law, specifically:

"It is declared to be the public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those officers and employees who represent them." - ss. 19.31

"Each authority, upon request for any record, shall, as soon as practicable and without delay, either fill the request or notify the requester of the authority's determination to deny the request in whole or in part and the reasons therefor." - ss. 19.35 (4)(a)

"Requests for public records should be given high priority." - Wisconsin Public Records Law Compliance Outline, 2007.

I got a good laugh (at you directly) from your posting of Aug 7, 2008 at 6:07 pm. Not only could you not think of anything new to say you decided to cut and paste your previous drivel; including the misspellings. Then you toss out a new victimization, the straw man card. The only straw man represented here is you, acting like the straw man (scarecrow) from the Wizard of Oz (if I only had a brain….yes that was way too easy). I will give you an easier one…you keep stating your “right” to the names. Please provide us the constitutional amendment, US law, state statute, or case law that shows you have the immediate right to names (from a county jurisdiction involving a police vs. criminal shooting), or even just inside the previously contested insanely long seven day window; you keep saying this is indeed your “right”, which you and the gazette have been denied.

I have another question for you. Why didn’t you or the Gazette criticize the Rock County Sheriffs department for waiting EIGHT days to release information regarding the sexual assault of an inmate by a guard (http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-ne... I find it hard to believe the EIGHT day eternity this organization took to fully divulge information did not spark a revolt from you or the paper.

"Your assessment that the names should not have been held is a belief based on your warped ideals" - Retired

Funny...how can I make such an assessment, based on my beliefs and ideals (drawn from the principles of integrity, honesty, fairness and justice, which you lack), if the information was never withheld, as you stubbornly and falsely claim, despite the reality of the facts? Despite your own contradiction in that quote?

I can't very well believe "that the names should not have been held", if the names were never held, now can I? You know; those names you acknowledge right there in that sentence were held, which lead to my assessment? Those names the Gazette itself stated were held? I mean, good lord, DID YOU EVEN BOTHER TO READ THE HEADLINE AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE?!! "RELEASED"!

I suppose in your fantasy land the Gazette had those two names alllll along, but decided to only run the story without them, so they could lie that they were in fact withheld just so they could later run a critical opinion piece for no good reason, right? After all, the Gazette secretly has me working for them to refute you on here, so obviously they're not above lying, right? And no doubt they simply talked all other local news outlets into not printing those two names either. It's all one big conspiracy, and I'm Big Brother! Congratulations; you've found us out!

As for me, I'm not always right and everyone else is always wrong (only you, in this case, happen to fit that description in regards to me), nor am I a sad, sad person. I'm quite happy, and will only be finding more joy from sitting back and watching the train-wreck that has been your littany of insults and willful ignorance reach it's self-important crescendo (that tiny, starving ego of yours that needed to point out all my typos also is incapable of walking away from this one, isn't it?). Your immature insults and desperate lies, used in place of logic and facts, were kind of amusing but are becoming a little tiring and only serves to not only weaken your already fact-less, emotion-driven opinion, but your own credibility as a human being. What MUST be tough is to psychologically assess yourself ("you are a sad, sad person who finds comfort in your perceived level of aloofness; while those around you laugh at your ineptitude". Yeaaa... you'll want to look up the word "projection") while hypocritically attributing it to me, not to mention your having to cling again and again and again and again solely to ad hominem and straw men arguments.

As a retiree, don't you think it's time you finally grew up?

The Gazette's well-thought out and honest assessment (which I support of my own choosing) is entirely correct: normally public information (information we indeed have the "right" to know), which was not sensitive or crucial to the investigation, nor endangering to anyone, was abnormally withheld for an unecessary amount of time. The officers' names should not have been withheld (yes, they were withheld, despite your ignorance of the fact) for approximately a week, but instead released when all other apsects of the case were. They were not. Sitting on the information without justification was wrong of the Walworth County Sheriff and his department (dependent on who was responsible for it being withheld) and raises questions about conduct and preferential attitudes within the department. The Gazette was honorable in correctly asserting this point.

Anything more you have to share beyond that fact amounts to only so much drivel and won't be deserving of response. Either you've learned your lesson, or you may pathetically stay here and waste time by thinking up exciting new insults and looking for typos while avoiding the topic you've failed to yet effectively argue against. Up to you how you enjoy that retirement.

Still ignoring reality, must be tough to look in the mirror and tell yourself you are always right and everyone else is wrong; sad, sad person you are. Now you are back to trying to support the paper after being totally refuted. Stating how they are “well-thought out” does not prove them correct. Your assessment that the names should not have been held is a belief based on your warped ideals…not backed by logic or laws (or laws of reason) . By egregiously believing you have the “right” to information; after you were shown in fact you do not have the right to it, you have the right to request it (again you are either wrong ,lying, or plain ignorant…you decide). Still waiting for your proof that the information was withheld???? Like I stated before, the article never said the information was requested by the gazette, so how can it have been withheld? You again state the department was sitting on the information, yet you again PROVIDE NO FACTS, other than the paper didn’t print it????? Your ad hominem remark of three seconds PROVES nothing; stick to the facts….like I said fact less! Oh, and thanks for bringing the victim card back for another round.

It's clear you have some issues (with what, I can't say), as you perceive an intelligent responder who has eloquently and logically rebuked your emotion-driven opinions, and now childish name-calling and post dissection, as some agent of the Gazette. As you advised me, "I suggest you get off the conspiracy bandwagon and look at all the facts before inferring results before presented."

Oh, and look up the word "tangent" while you're busy with that dictionary. My not bothering with the silliness of a false accusation of working for the Gazette doesn't involve my moving topically from my original intent to a new; it's simply me using those three seconds of common sense I suggested for use.

As before, none of my (nor the Gazette's) points are "incoherent", "fact less" or "baseless". Please don't lie again. You've proven nothing of the sort, and continued insistence only consitutes as libel (not that you haven't already committed it in every post here). The Gazette's well-thought out and honest assessment (which I support of my own choosing) is entirely correct: normally public information (information we indeed have the "right" to know), which was not sensitive or crucial to the investigation, nor endangering to anyone, was abnormally withheld for an unecessary amount of time. The officers' names should not have been withheld for approximately a week, but instead released when all other apsects of the case were. They were not. Sitting on the information without justification was wrong of the Walworth County Sheriff and his department (dependent on who was responsible for it being withheld) and raises questions about conduct and preferential attitudes within the department. The Gazette was honorable in correctly asserting this point.

Anything more you have to share beyond that fact amounts to only so much drivel and won't be deserving of response. Either you've learned your lesson, or you may pathetically stay here and waste time by thinking up exciting new insults and looking for typos while avoiding the topic you've failed to yet effectively argue against. Up to you how you enjoy that retirement.

Class dismissed.

REALLY??! HAHAHA...You're really going to point out TYPOS? How much of your life did you just waste scouring my posts for misspellings? I mean, I know some egos need all the help they can get, but wow... God forbid I spell a word wrong, you lover of the dictionary you! Whereas I use the correct words I intend to use with contexts and plural/singular forms, you used the wrong word entirely (on top of your own numerous incorrect spellings). That's why you didn't use "(s)". No need to insinuate others are uneducated when you were the one who didn't know which word they were using. You meant "incompetence", and you instead used the word "incompetents". Otherwise, you can keep claiming you intended to use "incompetents", while implicating that you don't know when to properly use "is" and "are". Deny all you'd like, it doesn't change the fact, and you only look sillier the longer you do it. I'm not aware of anyone out of school, much less retired, that relies as heavily on online dictionaries as you've made clear you do. Yet here you are. Considering, yes it's strange that your use of the internet to choose words and phrases didn't help you out with your colloquially incorrect phrase of "gross incompetents".

When asked to supply fact for my statement regarding the owner of the "Our View" article, my response was for you to purchase the paper to find the editors names. I completely addressed the question by stating “credit for it's authorship is placed with those editors, by the editor” and that, as an "our" view "it is the 'opinion' of the Gazette as an entity". Funny you missed those. Or did you really intentionally leave them out? Makes your refutation easier, I'm sure. Since my factual response (no need for quotations, as it is a fact) relies on previous existing responses to this section by the editor, that would make my statement anything but an assumption. Although I can't imagine why you of all people would "now the first part of that word".

Are you slow to learn, or just thirsting for an education? Class is now in session.

Back to ad hominem I see. Arguments are won on school playgrounds with name-calling. However, they aren't here, as I clearly prove with a little help from you. My reasoning ability is perfectly fine, thanks, especially considering I'm not the one who has incorrectly claimed (reoccurring theme of yours?) that "only a victim can be subjected to ad hominem and has not the ability to be guilty of the same".

False.

I'm quite able to be guilty of the same, yet victim you've made me. Likewise, I'm sorry, but all examples from your previous post of my alleged ad hominem were entirely incorrect (some words and terms can be tricky to understand correctly). Example by example, there was in fact "no ad hominem from me". However, victimization had nothing to do with being honest, which I was. Does that bother you?

You stated “The previous posters rants are devoid of the facts regarding the incident”. Yes, this is an attack on my character, although not only due to the word "rants" as you attempt to misleading suggest for me. If truly the only parts of my post that you found to be "rants" were cited by you in your last post, than it's odd that you also mentioned such "rants" were "devoid of the facts". What "facts" are missing from "rants" such as: “unthinking impetuousness”, “Just so long as the culprit is dead, I guess”, “complacent in your apathetic indifference”, or “It's scary that people flippantly believe”? Hmm? What "facts" should those "rants" contain that I left them "devoid" of? Oh, that's right, none. That's because you really meant to insinuate most or the entirety of my post was only "rants" without facts. In reality, my post (as with all the following) was factual and informed, regardless of you cherry-picking quotes. But it was a good try, attempting to discredit me and my post right off the bat.

Pure comedic relief of the professional wordsmith; please enjoy as I did.

“unecessary" ? Never seen this word before…guess you might have meant unnecessary?

“providance" ? A new word? Yes you tried hard here. The suffix “ance” is added to root words to change the meaning as in “state” process” or “action”. You did properly drop the “e” from the root word provide. The problem is the new word you created is not in the English dictionary. Unlike the word “ignorance” which is in the dictionary.

“recieve" ? Yes a tricky one. The old rule I before E except after C, guess you are not that smart after all? Must have went over your head?

“Seperately” ? This must be one of those “phrases” used by Google. Most people spell this word with two a’s and two e’s Example: Separately.

“enthusiatic " ? Another new word…perhaps you meant enthusiastic?

“possesion" ? The vast majority of those that speak the English language spell this word with two double sets of the letter s…Example: possession.

The bottom line to this is you are a sad, sad person who finds comfort in your perceived level of aloofness; while those around you laugh at your ineptitude. So please come back often and engage in your rhetorical babble and continue to tell yourself you have all the answers and everyone else is wrong. Oh, and don’t forget the victim card it will get you in for free.

Your victim mindset has overridden your reasoning ability. Thus, only a victim can be subjected to ad hominem and has not the ability to be guilty of the same; “no ad hominem from me”, I am a victim (sarcasm intended).

You lie to protect this victim mindset. Example; your statement “You have used personal attacks, not logic, to open every refutation”….yet the very first post about your comments by me began “The previous posters rants are devoid of the facts regarding the incident”. So to make this an ad hominem “attack” the word ‘rants’ must be an attack on your character instead of defining your previous angry posting; Examples “unthinking impetuousness”, “Just so long as the culprit is dead, I guess”, “complacent in your apathetic indifference”, “It's scary that people flippantly believe”, These statements can all be defined as rants. Since this clearly is not an example as you claim of ad hominem (oh, the poor victim)…then you are either a liar or very confused (sarcasm intended).

Your twice failed attempt at the proper use of words; first I did not select a phrase; I carefully selected words (I am not aware of anyone using Google to do this other than an editor or reporter). The word you “spelled” is not the correct word for the sentence. I purposely selected a word that substantiated the reason voters should engage their responsibility to hold officials to account. An event of “incompetence” does not demonstrate the level I was inferring. However multiple acts of being incompetent do. I could have used “()” to surround the plural “s” to make things clearer to the uneducated but I choose to assume those reading would be smart enough to grasp the correct context (sarcasm intended).

“Gopher”, you are the one who said the “Our Views section of the paper is authored (a curious word that someone from the media might have choose) by the staff”. For the uneducated that might read this, let me explain; the word staff refers to people who work for the paper. So when asked to supply fact for your statement regarding the owner of the article not previously cited you response was to purchase the paper (funny, how would I have gotten the previous information without that?) to find the editors names. You completely sidelined the question and stated “when the uniformed have criticized the Our Views in the past” (sounds like this is hitting very close to home). So your “facts” are from previous responses to this section --- that would make your statement an assumption (and we now the first part of that word)? Or do you know for a fact this was written by more than one person?

To address your statement “none of my…points are…fact less. Well the previous few sentences prove they are. It is also very curious how you defended the Gazettes points again, still makes me wonder if you work for the paper (you deftly avoided comment on this subject), thus being your true “tangent”.

As for having my "facts arranged", how is this for an arrangement: You chose the phrase "gross incompetents". First, that phrase is a common one, and is properly worded as "gross incompetence" (a quick Google search could've pointed this out to you, making it odd that you missed it considering how much you've relied on online dictionaries...). If you truly meant to use "incompetents" (I don't believe you did), you used it wrong colloquially. Pretending that I believe you really intended to use the word "incompetents", you've also incorrectly used the wrong form of the word by making it plural, with an "s". In other words, more than one incompetent. Yet, before its use you stated "If, there is gross incompetents...". Why would someone use the singular "is" if they truly meant to suggest multiple incomptents? Wouldn't you have known better to have used "are" instead? You would never say "there IS players on the field", you would say "there ARE players..." Sadly, you did know better, because you used the singular form, as you had really intended to write "incompetence", which would have made your use of "is" correct. You simply didn't write the word you intended, and now choose to deny it.

But hey, don't let it get you down too much. Keep it up with the online dictionary and soon you'll be choosing the correct words to use in no time.

So, lesson learned?

I guess some lessons take longer than others.

I'm sorry you need to lie, Retired. I'm also sorry you've misunderstood "ad hominem"... but at least you bothered to look the word up this time. All your examples are incorrect.

1. You have used personal attacks, not logic, to open every refutation. It is a clear, fair and factual observation that you simply aren't willing to use logic instead of name-calling, and a good estimate that possibly you aren't able to as well. The substance of your use of ad hominem was addressed, and your own repeated use was evidence of it. No ad hominem from me.

2. Since (as you yourself claim) the Gazette wrote "it was too long, in their opinion before this information was provided", then for one to claim that information was not withheld clearly does make one either a liar or confused. This is the truth. I, of course, have allowed you and others to decide which of the two you possibly are. Yet, since I again addressed the substance of your argument, and used examples to support myself in doing so, there is no ad hominem from me.

3. Sorry, but being helpful with another person's spelling is only considerate. You can't blame me for taking some joy in my work. Either way, no personal attack against you was made... I simply pointed out that incompetently spelling the correct form of the word "incompetence" was ironic.

Examples four and five are so far from ad hominem, it's almost not worth it to point out. My tangent really in fact had gone over your head (twice) as you continue to force the issue that the original FOI had any impact on this case. It does not, which is all fine since I never claimed it did and wasn't my point, despite your confusion. I've explained my tangential point and how it was relevant to right to know. If you continue to misunderstand, I'm sorry. As for using three seconds of common sense, maybe you should do so; asking a person to do that is not ad hominem. It's just a good suggestion.

I also won't serve as your gopher. Inside every edition of the Gazette, the names of the editors are listed. Have a look for yourself for 75 cents. When the uninformed have criticized the "Our Views" in the past, credit for it's authorship is placed with those editors, by the editor. Also, none of my (nor the Gazette's) points are "incoherent", "fact less" or "baseless". Please don't lie.

Thank you incoherenttruth for your failed attempt to school others in the spelling of words. You stated “The correct spelling is "incompetence"…..Yes that is the correct spelling of that word, but I did not use that word I used incompetents. They have two complete different meanings. The word you decided to spell for everyone means [The quality or state of being incompetent]. The word I used means [not legally qualified; inadequate to or unsuitable for a particular purpose; lacking the qualities needed for effective action; unable to function properly] I suggest the next time you try to school others you have your facts arranged accordingly. For future reference Merriam-Webster does provide a free on-line source for your browsing pleasure http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar....

I see incoherenttruth has come back to provide more false statements. Your comment “falsely accusing me of "assuming" the Gazette was denied info. While I appreciate you claiming that the Gazette never stated they were denied info, I can't help but feel you may have missed where I wrote previously: "The Gazette article never stated they were completely denied the information...and neither did I……yet in the previous post on Jul 15, 2008 at 12:32 a.m. you said “the sheriff denied their release”…so tell us all again, did you say they were denied information or not?

You again are accusing others of ad hominem while doing the same thing. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/a...) If you don’t like it then why do you practice it?...........Example 1: you're not willing (able?),………….. Example 2: when you claim that the Gazette never stated that they were withheld information, you're either a liar, or very confused……………. Example 3: But the irony is hilariously delicious. I warned you about embarrassment. Lesson learned?................... Example 4: it went over your head…………… Example 5: with three seconds use of common sense.

To your point of the author of the Our Views article. If you know for a fact this was written by more than one person, please tell us all who were involved. By your incoherent and fact less points it makes one believe you work for the same paper that provided these baseless accusations.

Also, I'd like to thank you for falsely accusing me of "assuming" the Gazette was denied info. While I appreciate you claiming that the Gazette never stated they were denied info, I can't help but feel you may have missed where I wrote previously: "The Gazette article never stated they were completely denied the information...and neither did I. It was simply withheld 7 days too long before being released." Maybe you just thought I needed some repeating? Maybe; thanks for supporting my correct point. Unfortunately, you supported my correct point with your incorrect wording. How?

Allow me to help you out. I assume you've taken the quote "(the Gazette), believed it was too long, in their opinion before this information was provided" from another piece from the Gazette. Maybe it's even from the original "Our Views" section you mentioned (more on that in a second). Regardless, when it says "too long... before this information was PROVIDED", this means that there was information that was not provided to the media. In other words, it was denied or withheld. Those two names weren't floating out there and reporters just happened to miss them amongst all the other facts of the story they already had at that point. So when you claim that the Gazette never stated that they were withheld information, you're either a liar, or very confused.

Speaking of confused, three more quick points:

1.
the "Our Views" section is authored by the paper's editorial staff. It does not have an author as you'll notice the word "our". That means possesion by more than one person. It is the "opinion" of the Gazette as an entity.

2.
I agree; as citizens we need to allow the people we vote and hire to perform the tasks asked of them. What you seemingly fail to understand is that withholding the names of two officers, while all other aspects of the case have been released, is not performing the tasks we ask of them. It's preferential treatment that attempts to sidestep the prompt release of public information without falling under the provisions of appropriate restriction of information. The two officers personally have nothing to do with this; it's squarely on the shoulders of those in charge of disbursing such information to the public (or those who prevented those people from properly doing so).

3.
The correct spelling is "incompetence". But the irony is hilariously delicious.

I warned you about embarrassment. Lesson learned?

Thank you, Retired, for lowering yourself AGAIN to the level of ad hominem. Name calling and attempted character assassination might be the standards in the US Air Force, but it is not that of intelligent discourse. I'm sorry you're not willing (able?) to refute me logically. Your loss.

As stated, I was correct in listing the FOI act of 1967, as it has everything to do with your incorrect statement that there is no "right to know". It's called a tangential point. I made it correctly. Oh, and I never claimed the 1967 FOI served any agencies other than those that are federal; please don't falsely accuse me or insinuate something that isn't.

I then pointed out that police records are also public information and therefore more relevant to this case. Convenient that you've seemingly ignored that point. You then showed just how little ground you actually had to stand on by weakening your own argument even further through pointing out that "Wisconsin has their own (FOI) from 2003". Right to know and right to request is the same concept using different words. Kind of like how Bush doesn't do "timelines", but booooy does he love "horizons". Anyway, as you pointed out, government has "the right to restrict information during an investigation or restrict personally identifiable information that if disclosed would endanger safety". Aside from those exemptions, the information is public and should be released promptly (as all other aspects of this case were) upon such request. Since everything but the names of the two officers was released initially, and since doing so would have in no way endangered anyone's safety or damaged the investigation, there was no justifiable cause for withholding those two names longer than any other informational aspect of the occurrence.

he did not put her inthe street ...he was killed in his truck!!!! she was next to him!!!

Thank you incoherenttruth, your lack of understanding has now gone to a new high. As stated YOU were incorrect in listing the FOI act of 1967, it has nothing to do with local agencies only Federal. The time table not provided by the Gazette is important. YOU ASSUME the Gazette was denied information, this was never stated by them. They articulated; “they (the Gazette), believed it was too long, in their opinion before this information was provided”. Then insinuated this is a pattern of the Walworth Department without providing facts to support their claims (much like you). Furthermore, the FOI does not grant you the right to information, it provides the frame work allowing you the right to request information. These are two completely different things that have gone over your head. As citizens we do have rights and should question government to hold them accountable. But also as citizens we need to allow the people we vote and hire to perform the tasks asked of them. Shamelessly making absurd and baseless claims in the media does nothing but discredit the fine people who have stepped forward to accept these challenging positions others care not perform. If, there is gross incompetents we should all stand forward and correct it. The nit picking accomplished by the staff of the Gazette article from the “our views” section on this topic was inadequate; so much so the author was not named.

Thank you, Retired, for lowering yourself to the level of ad hominem. I guess you can't refute me without sound facts and examples, as I've done with you. I'll remain a pleasant poster through my logically coherent points that are well grounded in factuality. Thank you for your enthusiatic response, though.

The Gazette article never stated they were completely denied the information...and neither did I. It was simply withheld 7 days too long before being released. But nice try at false accusation.
True; it was over a week after the incident before the Gazette received the names, as the sheriff denied their release. Date of information request is irrelevant, as it was unavailable at time of the request regardless, or obviously there would be no concern with the providing of that information. Of course, with three seconds use of common sense, and the handy use of a calendar, we can also see that a week from June 30th (the date of the shooting) is July 7th, the exact time the names had been withheld from the media. Maybe The Gazette is expecting too much of us to be able to figure out such mind-bogglers?
Seperately, if you had taken care to remain in the context of my "specific" statement, you'd have realized that there is truly a "right to know", as provided by federal and state information acts, as well as (and this is what totally discounts your non-point concerning "federal government ONLY") matters of public record, such as police reports. This was my well proven point; I'm sorry it went over your head.
As for the the "right to restrict information during an investigation or restrict personally identifiable information that if disclosed would endanger safety", there's just that teensy problem regarding the fact that the reporting of the officers' names would have been inconsequential, as practically all other aspects of the crime/shooting being investigated were publicly released, save the two names. And since no one's safety would have been endangered by the release of the officers' names (as The Gazette and I have already pointed out, but which you've seemed to, again, miss) that stipulation to the law doesn't hold up for you either.

I suggest you take your own advice before you bother embarrassing yourself here again, Retired.

The previous posters rants are devoid of the facts regarding the incident. The Gazette article never stated they were completely denied the information, they complained it was over a week after the incident before they received the names; with no mention of when they requested the information. Your specific statement regarding the freedom of information act from 1967 applies to the federal government ONLY. Yes, Wisconsin has their own from 2003. Under this state statute the local government has the right to restrict information during an investigation or restrict personally identifiable information that if disclosed would endanger safety. I suggest you get off the conspiracy bandwagon and look at all the facts before inferring results before presented.

It's rather scary that people don't mind, in this free country of the United States of America, the withholding of information by it's own representatives. It's scary that people flippantly believe that we should recieve only the information the police want us to have, not the information we as citizens personally want and deserve, as provided under the law. It's that kind of indifference that has lead to privacy and civil rights abuses of U.S. citizens by local law enforcement, FBI, CIA, and NSA, and which will only lead to more in the future. It's also that kind of indifference that leads to fascism.

It's simply a matter of American principles, and a question of whether you have them or not.

A poster claims that giving "the media names of the officers involved would not have provided the (investigation's) results any sooner." Funny thing: the providance of the names of those officers likewise would not have impeded the results of the investigation, either. Yet normally public information that was not sensitive or crucial to the investigation, nor endangered anyone, was abnormally withheld for an unecessary amount of time. Why? What was gained? Besides questions about the practices of the Walworth County Sheriff's Department, that is.

There is one thing to remember here: our government, local and federal, is representative OF THE PEOPLE. Yet some of you are more than satisfied to go on through life complacent in your apathetic indifference. You place blind trust in the government and its agencies that were established to work for and answer to us. Just because they do the former does not make them exempt from the latter. Furthermore, how can we be certain they are doing the former if they don't do the latter? Comes back to the old question: who will police the police?

A death has occurred at the expense of the safety of an innocent life. And while you laud this form of justice, you disregard another: civic justice, the public's right to know. The ignorant posters here are quick to spew "you have NO right to know". No right? No, no "right" per se...but there is this tiny little thing called the Freedom of Information Act that's been around since 1967. Oh, and that thing they call "public record". Maybe you've heard of these things? From the sounds of it, most or all of you have not. How sad that in a state of unthinking impetuousness, several of you disregard the importance of thoroughly factual information regarding a legal scenario which involved offenses like spousal abuse, kidnapping, child endangerment and a high-speed pursuit to be reported to the public. You were given the sensational details of the offenses (information which, if withheld, would have incensed you) and you were given your happy resolution(information which, if withheld, would have incensed you), but when it comes to the important fact of who stopped the offender by lethal force, well that's just inconsequential, right? Nothing important about who's discharging their weapons in public, regardless of what their job entails, right? Just so long as the culprit is dead, I guess. The endings of stories are overrated anyway.

In the printed Gazette today in the opinion area, the Gazette staff lashed out at the Walworth County Sheriffs department for not reporting the officers names sooner, declaring “we have a right to know”.

First off, no you don’t have a “right to know”, you have a want and a desire to know. The department was doing its job gathering all the facts and reaching out to outside agencies to provide an impartial investigation into the shooting. To stop and provide the media names of the officers involved would not have provided the results any sooner.

The poor taste the Gazette showed was distasteful. Had the same events happened in Rock County there would have been silence in their paper for a delay in releasing names.

yes, they did take a life and yes they did nothing more then what was expected of them. I don't disagree with you, but my point is, its not an event where police officers should take credit for what the did or should the public know who did it. Thjats their job and thats it. Hey I built 130 beds today do you or anyone else give two @#$^& about that? No and I don't care what you do for a living. The bottom line is that this man was shot and killed by lawenforcement. They did what their training told them to do, END OF STORY.

I used to live in Wlaworth County and am proud of the sheriff's Department there. I now live in St. Germain, Wi. but am happy to see these professionals still do the job required without hesitation. They did not take a life. That was decided by Torres the moment he threatened a life with the shotgun.

good job to the cop's that shot him you'r training came into play and it great,

The last statement is so true, Why do we need to know who did the shooting? I am sure the officers don't need anymore attention drawn to them. It's not like an olympic event. They did the job they are trained to do and I am thankful that they did it, they don't need any negative comments or publicity. As for GUNS, GUNS, GUNS, yes if more trained, qualified, good guys and gals had guns there would be LESS crime. Let's bring back the Concealed carry bill and get it passed this time.

Who cares what the officers names are. They shoot and killed a person, "END OD STORY". What, now that we know who killed this person we should give them a big thanks or even a medal? Do we know the name of the person carying out the death penatly everytime its done? No. You know why? cause nobody cares.

Proud to be a walworth county resident! Your quick thinking and heroics are commendable.

Although the loss of life is always a last resort, it is nice to be able to feel safe.

Pin a medal on those officers

GUNS, GUNS, GUNS. WE ALL HAVE TO HAVE GUNS.

never stated where the officers were in relation to the child. A 1 year old is really low to the ground especially while seated. She was in much more danger of being shot by her father.

I'm glad for the outcome of this situation, but the way the story reads was the little girl not in the line of fire?

Thank you guys. You saved the life of a child. I know you didn't join the force to kill someone but in this instance it was unavoidable. Though it's easier said than done I hope you don't feel 10 seconds of guilt over this. In my book you're heroes.

It's a difficult job being in law enforcement, but I am glad for those people who are willing to put their lives on the line for others. In this case, it is for the future of our country! God bless law enforcement!

This was a justified reason for the sake of a child hats off to the both of them and hope the emotion scars are short lived

Hats off to both Walworth County Deputies who had to make that split second, life saving choice. I am sure they didn't go to work that day thinking they would have to end a man's life.
They are both commendable for their actions that day.

Thank you, officers, for not hesitating. God bless you all.