Posted on 06/19/2008 5:30:47 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
A Milwaukee County Circuit Court jury got a disturbing view Wednesday into the secret world of murder defendant Rene Stermole, a malevolent world of plotting terrorists, hidden assassins and nefarious gangs.
Stermole, 58, wept, yelled, whispered and laughed during his daylong testimony. Despite efforts by his attorney, the prosecutor and the judge, that testimony ranged near and far as he tried to explain why, on June 13, 2007, he shot his neighbor, Mark Wright, six times as Wright prepared to grill dinner for his wife and 7-year-old daughter.
“I have been framed for murder,” Stermole yelled to the jury more than once, claiming investigators at virtually every level of his case altered or withheld evidence in order to convict him.
Stermole and Wright, neighbors since 1992, seem to have lived in different universes.
June 13, 2007, had been Wright’s daughter’s last day of school. He and his wife decided to take their daughter out for dinner. Later in the day, Wright, an African-American maintenance worker at Mitchell International Airport for 26 years, called his wife and the couple decided to have a cookout instead.
When Elaine Wright came home with their daughter, Mark Wright kissed her and helped her unload groceries. It was about 5:30 p.m. when he went into his backyard with a bag of garbage, a pair of tongs and a cooking fork.
Stermole woke up that day around 8 a.m. Born in Germany, Stermole was the son of a tailor with a shop in Shorewood, Stermole was never able to hold a steady job and lived with his elderly mother, sleeping on the couch of a clutter-filled house in a middle-class neighborhood just north of W. Capitol Drive.
He had never married, believing, he said, that the forces that were out to get him would kill his wife. He created an elaborate system of locks on his doors, set up surveillance cameras and taped the doors of his house shut — even the refrigerator door was taped — believing he would be able to detect intruders if the various pieces of tape were broken.
Stermole spent most of June 13 running errands. Though the day was hot, he wore a heavy coat to hide the .40- and .50-caliber handguns he wore in a holster around his hips. He had another handgun in his coat pocket.
“I don’t take out the garbage unless I am armed,” he told the jury.
Stermole said he believed Wright was a member of the El Rukn street gang, as well as a terrorist. Stermole believed Wright wanted to kill him and believed Wright had repeatedly threatened to kill him.
Stermole was completing his chores for the day just as Wright was beginning to grill.
He was shaken, he said.
He had seen two African-American men that he believed were El Rukn gangsters hanging out in a threatening manner near a bus stop. One of the men looked like a guy that had beaten him up in 1986. He drove past another African-American man whom he believed reached into his coat in a threatening way.
As Stermole pulled into his alley, he stopped his car near Wright, who was in or near his own backyard, pulled out a camera and photographed him.
In the picture, Wright’s arms are spread out in a gesture of apparent disbelief. He is holding a bag of garbage and some cooking utensils. He is wearing a polo shirt, shorts and sneakers.
Stermole told the jury that he interpreted the gesture as an invitation to a gunfight. He believed Wright was wearing a bulletproof vest, was packing two handguns and had a sniper backing him up.
“He was making a statement,” Stermole said. “He’s not there to take out the garbage. He’s there for me.”
Stermole said he pulled his car in the garage and began to pray that he would have the strength to defend himself. He considered which weapon he would use and decided on the .40-caliber Glock.
He stepped out of his garage, gun already pulled, and fired about 11 rounds at Wright, who was hit at least six times, including in the chest, the abdomen and twice in the back.
Elaine Wright heard the shots from her kitchen. Through a window, she watched her husband collapse.
As Elaine Wright ran to her husband, she passed Stermole as he walked back to his house. He remembered her saying something like “Have you gone crazy?”
Stermole said he thought she was speaking to her husband.
Jurors began to deliberate shortly before 5 p.m. and will resume today.
They have four possible verdicts: first-degree intentional homicide; second-degree intentional homicide; first-degree reckless homicide and not guilty.
If the jury convicts Stermole, the trial will go into a second phase to determine if he is not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.
Yeah. Heaven forbid someone touches on the subject of bringing back mental hospitals and involuntary commitments for the delusional.
Ummmm, what was the poor guy planning on cooking?
I’m not seeing the problem with this story. Should the reporter not have quoted the defendant?
The guy obviously is completely bonkers. Given his disconnect with reality, I’m not sure I’m real happy he owned guns.
This incident will get carte blanche treatment by the DBM... it involves so many of the RAT’s talking-points... almost to the point of seeming fictional.
I think they’re trying to make this mentally diseased man a prototype of “whitey” who is a threat to the black man simply because the black man is black and this “whitey” fears someone who is different from himself and imagines them all to be gang members or terrorists.
Exactly like Obama said about his white grandmother, that she feared when she saw a black man on the street because “she’s a typical white person”.
Only in this case “whitey” had a gun and blew away an innocent black man who was outside to barbeque dinner for his family, because “whitey” thought the black guy was a terrorist because he was black.
When in truth, this white guy was out of his mind and seemed to have been so his entire life.
Execute the F*** - What possible use to mankind is it to suffer these wackjobs?
So that they can grow up, well known to all family and friends as nuts, and eventually shoot some defenseless person for no reason at all?
And that is to the social good???
Personal, not public responsibility, should have identified and isolated this threat long ago.
Of course, the word, “responsibility” is an archaic concept to liberal trash.
How’d you like to have him as a neighbor, Diana? Nuts and fairly well armed. Enjoy cooking on the grill? Ever take the trash out? Ever deal with mental illness up close and personal?
I’m not quite sure I can get behind your take on this story.
A homosexual shot his neighbor in Houston and I didn’t see it make national headlines...
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-06-19/news/a-montrose-man-s-panic-room-wasn-t-enough/
What a surprise coming from you, LOL!
Now, where did I say that I think people that are nuts should have guns?
My “take” is that the media and the local gun-grabbers in WI will run with this to confiscate my guns and the guns of other law-abiders if at all possible.
Camel’s nose under the tent...
Now, where did I say that I think people that are nuts should have guns?
_______
OK. Does that mean you do support the notion that not everyone should be permitted to own weapons? That some folks should have their guns grabbed? Is that also the camel’s nose under the tent?
I’m not trying to be difficult, but having dealt with an immediate family member’s mental illness, the idea of that individual armed is more than a bit scary. And until they are deemed a danger to themselves or to others (very difficult to do, btw), there is jack that I would have been able to do.
I grew up a city boy, no guns, fairly liberal parents (Dad was a Goldwater pubby turned McGovern voter by Nixon), but was taken to the woodshed a bit early in my FR education and now have very different views on 2nd amendment issues than I did when I first arrived here.
I don’t know where the fulcrum is for this balancing act.
I can’t figure out what you two are arguing about. The obvious lesson here for any thinking person is that crazy people should not be free to harass the community with guns. It is also obvious that leftists will use the incident to attempt to keep sane, law-abiding citizens from having guns.
And Hollywood would be out in force trying to protect him.
For us - it's the same. The nut killed a man - and should pay the price.
If he used a gun, a baseball bat or a wet noodle - the crime is murder.
He should be judged on that crime, not the politics of owning a gun.( and yes, I believe in the death penalty)
So tell me, should the reporter not have quoted the defendant?
Do you think this nutcase should have had guns?
“My “take” is that the media and the local gun-grabbers in WI will run with this to confiscate my guns and the guns of other law-abiders if at all possible.”
Please let us know when (or should I say IF) that starts. Then we’ll get upset about it.
My take is the gun grabbers MIGHT use it to try to tighten gun controls on nutcases like this guy. And I’d agree with them. This is NOT a person I’d want to live near, even if I were heavily armed.
I can’t figure out what you two are arguing about. The obvious lesson here for any thinking person is that crazy people should not be free to harass the community with guns. It is also obvious that leftists will use the incident to attempt to keep sane, law-abiding citizens from having guns.
_____
Chuckling. I wasn’t even aware that Diana and I were arguing. A very gentle back and forth making sure each understood the other. Fairly typical exchange in a non verbal internet forum.
If someone is CRIMINALLY insane they should not be walking around among us.
Even if they are medication, they are still unstable and considered not responsible for their actions.
Put them under house "arrest" with their legal guardian accounting for their every action or else put them in an institution.
Don't take away the rights of everyone so that you can keep the criminally insane out of institutions.
Crazy people will assault you with a knife or screwdriver too.
And waring neighbors are another problem to consider too. Pretty common one too.
Crazy people should not be allowed to harass the community with anything. Once this poor delusional man had reached the point of deciding he had to kill his neighbor, the weapon used would have been whatever he had available.
Fault lies with the crazy man's family and the state for not providing supervision and allowing this man to accumulate weapons and continue to spiral into deeper delusion.
I bet this batshit crazy has a history of assault that he has never been arrested for because everyone felt sorry for him, so he gets away with worsening behavior until he finally kills someone.
I am absolutely ready to bring back institutionalization of delusional mentally ill people.
The only thing 'subtle' here is my disgust at the loss of an innocent life, and the impact to his wife and family, when the man got gunned down for no real reason whatsoever. That is what I see/feel here.
Sure, I am certain some anti-gun nutjob somewhere will try to ride this for all it is worth, but that is NOT the main story here. Yet none of the posts really touch on that.
Before i came to this thread i saw another one of a dad having to save one of his kids and leave another one to drown (he could not save her because he could not see her) after a canoe accident. Another example of a very tragic thing happening to a family, and definitely something that will affect that family as this incident will affect this family.
Maybe i should have started the posts on that thread by inquiring if some Democrat nutjob might consider canoe-boating as another form of population control? After all, I am certain there is some crazy out there who would think that.
Did not do that for several reasons: 1) it is an extremely sad event that requires prayers for those involved, and 2) while there might be 10 people twisted enough to say such a thing, most people will feel empathy for the poor father looking for his children in the river.
I kind of feel the same thing here. While some DUmmie kook will probably use this as a gun control 'case study,' that is not the main story here. It is about a guy who got killed for no good reason.
A gun just happened to be used. That does not mean the his death is just some footnote and the issue is gun control. Goodness, gun control does not even work. What killed this guy was not a gun ....what killed him was a crazy guy who just happened to use a gun. He could have used a garden hoe for goodness sake. And as for his race and the Obama connection (and that post about his white grandmother on this thread), or of homosexuals shooting people in houston, it is amazing how totally disconnected things just appear.
The first real post that showed some form of understanding about the REAL thing that happened was post 7 whereby the poster said that the killer should be executed. Everything before that, and most after, is either about anti-gun nuts making a case out of this (they might, but they are kooks anyways), or other stuff.
The thread about some crazy highschool girls who decided to get pregnant together had more sympathetic comments than this thread.
Oh...so now you are going off on me. You need to chill! You freakin' nutcase!!!!!
(Please check my tagline before you reply.)
If someone is CRIMINALLY insane they should not be walking around among us.
Even if they are medication, they are still unstable and considered not responsible for their actions.
Put them under house “arrest” with their legal guardian accounting for their every action or else put them in an institution.
Don’t take away the rights of everyone so that you can keep the criminally insane out of institutions.
______
Therein lies the problem, weegee. He was simply insane before the shooting, he only became criminally insane after the shooting.
To your great benefit, it appears that dealing with a family member’s mental illness is a joy you have not had to deal with. The laws of our freedom loving country make it very challenging to keep someone who is clearly insane off the streets, unless or until you can convince an emergency room doctor and the shrink on call in the emergency room that the individual is a danger to him or her self or to others. And even if you are successful at that, within a week of their involuntary committment, a special master hears the case, and is heavily biased in favor of the patient’s freedom.
I’ve had to deal with a relative who had dementia.
And I heard throughout the media fluff about the Virginia Tech killer newsstory that he was functional. He WAS NOT FUNCTIONAL. He ‘appeared’ to be functional. The danger he posed to himself and those around him was found throughout his writings and his public thoughts.
“OK. Does that mean you do support the notion that not everyone should be permitted to own weapons?”
Sure. Crazy people and convicted felons. Most State laws already cover that, however actual enforcement of those laws suck.
Here in Wisconsin (and IL) the guy who was shot was a sitting duck. He’s not allowed to carry, and neither am I. Quack! (Yes, I’m working on changing that!) So, his rights trump the rights of the lunatic, IMHO. Fat lot that did for him, though...
The lunatic had guns and I’ll bet it was without any licensing or screening process whatsoever. Felons and lower-level thugs do it all the time.
I have NO problem infringing upon the rights of nuts and felons. They give up their rights because they either won’t or don’t seek mental health help, or they’ve been in serious trouble with the law.
We can thank the Socialists for opening up the mental wards and saying, “See ya later! Good luck to you now!” And it’s incredibly hard (as you may know) to get anyone committed against their will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.