RI man charged with strip club shooting

2013-04-01T04:30:00Z 2013-04-01T05:38:02Z RI man charged with strip club shootingBy Tara Becker The Quad-City Times
April 01, 2013 4:30 am  • 

A Rock Island man is behind bars Sunday after police say he fired seven or eight shots into a crowd outside a Davenport strip club earlier that morning. 

DeMarko Onslow Williams, 24, 1704 5th St., is charged with assault intimidation with a dangerous weapon, punishable by 10 years in prison, felon in possession of a firearm, and interference with official acts, both punishable by five years in prison..

He also is charged with reckless use of a firearm with property damage, an aggravated misdemeanor punishable by two years in prison, and possession of a controlled substance, a serious misdemeanor punishable by a year in prison.

He was in the Scott County Jail this afternoon on a $19,000 bond.

According to the arrest affidavit:

Williams was at the Chorus Line, 4128 N. Brady St., in Davenport about 3:22 a.m. A plain clothes police officer saw him fire a gun seven or eight times toward a crowd of people clustered around the entrance of the club.

Several vehicles and the building were hit. Williams fled on foot and was arrested a short time later. He had a 1911 45-caliber semi-automatic handgun and a plastic bag with 2.3 grams of marijuana, according to the affidavit.

Williams was sentenced to 10 years in prison for first-degree theft in December 2005.

Copyright 2015 The Quad-City Times. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(45) Comments

  1. Randogg420
    Report Abuse
    Randogg420 - April 07, 2013 10:38 am
    Just another thug from Rock Island nothing ever changes for the better in this pit
  2. Klaatu
    Report Abuse
    Klaatu - April 05, 2013 3:00 pm
    And that study isn't skewed or flawed in any way, is it? I saw the exact opposite study some time ago, and of course the obvious anecdotal stuff, like the many democrat voters who can't even tell you who is VP or Speaker of the House. You can find a poll to support any position, but I can tell you how they come with this one. They present topics like global warming. A person who doesn't believe the global warming hype is then categorized as uninformed. They posit questions that are not based on fact. Stick to the absolute hard facts, like who is your president, vice president, speaker, senate leader, things like that, and Fox viewers are by far more informed than the average citizen. I saw that question on global warming used as "proof" that Fox viewers are uniformed. NPR is far from unbiased, in fact there is very little "news" content that is unbiased anymore. Fox does a good job on hard news, but they have their opinion based shows too. MSNBC is ALL opinion skewed, there is no hard news content to be found there. You need to differentiate between the hard news and opinion. I don't watch any of them anymore. I prefer to get my content from the net, I want to read it, not watch and listen.
  3. aequitas
    Report Abuse
    aequitas - April 03, 2013 12:08 pm
    Your contention was that law abiding citizens already go through background checks. How would they be burdened by universal background check laws?
  4. aequitas
    Report Abuse
    aequitas - April 03, 2013 12:06 pm
    1) If your contention is that responsible gun owners have background checks done already, then there would already be a so-called "ownership tax," which responsible people are already happy to pay for. The only burden on this point would be to irresponsible people. Why do you want to protect irresponsible gun owners? In reference to your comparison with voting, there is no constitutional amendment preventing a gun ownership tax. There is, however, the 24th Amendment which prohibits a poll tax.

    2) The notion of firearm confiscation in America is laughable. You would have to believe that our neighbors who put on the uniform would follow such orders from an elected official who answers to those same people who are going to have their weapons purportedly confiscated. I'll just leave it to Alexander Hamilton:

    "Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? ...

    If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of [an armed citizenry]? If there should be no army, whither would the [armed citizenry], irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs."


    3) I thought we were talking about background checks? Your incredibly weak slippery slope argument ignores American history and politics.
  5. Six_String
    Report Abuse
    Six_String - April 02, 2013 11:57 pm
    That's a silly comment. Laws essentially provide a punishment system if you break societal norms. The problem is, we don't effectively punish those that commit crimes. Look at the fool who shot a gun into the crowd outside the strip club the other night. He's already back out on the street even after having previous felony convictions (which he had early release for!)

    Give the laws some teeth. Keep the violent offenders off the streets, and you'll do more to help violent crime than giving law-abiding citizens a hard time.
  6. Six_String
    Report Abuse
    Six_String - April 02, 2013 11:54 pm
    That's hardly proving anyone or anything wrong. "Universal checks" are not a bad thing, but the way they would get implemented, it allows the gov't to effectively place an ownership tax on firearms. Who pays for the enhanced checks? Surely it won't be free - How will anyone manage to exercise their 2nd amendment rights if they have to pay extra? (sound like any voter ID argument? eh?)

    Once the gov't gets into keeping documents of who purchases a gun, it's all too easy for that to turn into a confiscation plan, or something like the politicians talk about where they want to require a certain amount of insurance if you own a gun (wow, the gov't requiring people to buy insurance under penalty of law?)

    No one still has provided ANY argument as to why there's a vilification of one type of firearm that's used in less than 1% of gun crimes. Just come right out and say it - your ultimate goal is no firearms. Libs are scared to state that fact. Start small. Ban "assault" weapons. Then semi-auto rifles, then semi-auto pistols, then revolvers with more than 5 rounds in the cylinder. Where's it stop?
  7. aequitas
    Report Abuse
    aequitas - April 02, 2013 9:19 pm
    If responsible gun owners already self police and are conducting background checks even when not legally required to do so, then they would not be inconvenienced by a universal background check law as the NRA claims. Thank you for proving the NRA wrong.
  8. Randogg420
    Report Abuse
    Randogg420 - April 02, 2013 5:54 pm
    Thug Life at its best
  9. twiggy
    Report Abuse
    twiggy - April 02, 2013 5:47 pm
    Please explain how they are misrepresenting the facts. Is Forbes conservative enough for you?

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/


    How about Business Insider?

    http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5


    Learn to like the truth.
  10. sikofit
    Report Abuse
    sikofit - April 02, 2013 2:54 pm
    You are right blame the messenger. When they are misrepresenting the facts!
  11. aequitas
    Report Abuse
    aequitas - April 02, 2013 1:49 pm
    1) Then why should we have any laws, 45acp? Using your rationale, we should have absolutely no laws because the criminals are going to break them anyway. That's just a foolish argument.

    2) It's telling that you completely ignored the questions in my previous post. You have no rational answer.
  12. 45acp
    Report Abuse
    45acp - April 02, 2013 4:50 am
    the problem is aequitas that you people on the left don't seem to be able to grasp is NO amount of new legislation will make any difference whatsoever to the criminals. you see, they do not currently and will not follow any laws on the books now or ever and for some stupid reason you people think that by adding some new laws you are going to cut back on illegal selling/purchasing. get it through your thick skulls that this won't happen. all you will accomplish is to add another burden and expense to the abiding people. why don't you first start by figuring out a way to properly punish the bad guys that are caught with or use guns? you want to legislate and punish the wrong people. we all know what your ultimate agenda is and "it ain't gonna happen"...
  13. Six_String
    Report Abuse
    Six_String - April 02, 2013 12:37 am
    So someone steals my car and kills someone, I'm responsible? Same difference.
  14. Six_String
    Report Abuse
    Six_String - April 02, 2013 12:36 am
    Try this little experiment. Go out to some site like armslist or gunbroker. Find some handgun. Maybe a little .380 mouse gun. Tell the seller you don't have a FOID or Iowa purchase permit. I'll place money on the table that you get told "no." At the very best, you'll get an offer that the seller will take a deposit to hold the gun while you go get your permit.

    Thus, background check - complete.

    The key point is, the LEGAL buyers and sellers already self-police. The guys that broke into a gun store and did a smash & grab on the counter are looking to move the hardware in any way possible. They don't care about background checks, nor will a law get them to do so.
  15. twiggy
    Report Abuse
    twiggy - April 01, 2013 9:42 pm
    You don't read much do you? Farleigh Dickenson University did the statistics. They did a poll re news organizations. SURPRISE!!! Viewers of FOX came in last.

    http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/


    But I don't expect you to agree. "Blame the messenger" is much easier. If you don't agree it MUST be that the opposition is is lying, I get that.
  16. sikofit
    Report Abuse
    sikofit - April 01, 2013 9:04 pm
    Poynter.org - the same organization of Liberal nitwits who own the St. Petersburg Pravda .. err I mean St. Petersburg Times, as well as Politifac. Yeah great example to use there as far as them supporting CNN and NPR and not Fox News.

    It would be no different than a Conservative using Rush Limbagh to say the opposite. Wonder what your opinion on someone doing that here would be Twiggy?
  17. QC Father
    Report Abuse
    QC Father - April 01, 2013 6:06 pm
    Mt. Joy is a BYOB, they close at 2:00
    Dooks closes at 2:00, don't they?
  18. twiggy
    Report Abuse
    twiggy - April 01, 2013 5:42 pm
    I agree 100%. I do not want him as a neighbor. But the Constitution gives us the right to a reasonable bail. NO I do not like the fact that he was released before serving his complete sentence. I don't know that it was Illinois, was it? It doesn't say in the article. But more than likely Iowa lets prisoners out early too. Not something I am in favor of.
  19. Six_String
    Report Abuse
    Six_String - April 01, 2013 4:59 pm
    So... Here we have a thug shooting 7 or 8 shots into a crowd, and he won't be charged with multiple counts of attempted murder? To the left: This is what you need to focus on! Put the guy away for 8 x 20-year sentences! Instead, someone will decide to use this as an example of why I shouldn't be able to have a firearm with more than X number of rounds in it.
  20. aequitas
    Report Abuse
    aequitas - April 01, 2013 4:30 pm
    1) If you don't know any gun owners that would sell to a private purchaser, how are you qualified to pass judgment on whether or not they are in fact "shady" or whether they would or would not continue to do so without conducting a check? Do you have some mind reading capability?

    2) If your position is that responsible gun owners don't sell to anyone on the street currently, how would extending background checks to cover those sales inconvenience responsible gun owners? The proposed legislation exempts family transfers. By your own admission, then, only irresponsible gun owners/sellers would be affected.
  21. aequitas
    Report Abuse
    aequitas - April 01, 2013 4:23 pm
    45acp, I was actually eager to see the quote that you were referencing earlier. I had an open mind. When you proclaimed, "Here, here is my evidence!" however, it did not say what you said that it would say. Attacking me does nothing to change that.
  22. twiggy
    Report Abuse
    twiggy - April 01, 2013 4:06 pm
    TOBT Regarding watching FOX, you might find the attached site interesting.

    http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/


    It appears watchers of FOX are the least informed about the news, domestic and international, while listeners to NPR are the most informed. Seems those watching FOX even know less than those who don't watch ANY news, amazing, but not particularly surprising. As to MSNBC, I'm with you, I don't generally watch it either, too biased. But their watchers did know more than Fox watchers in the poll.


    CNN, NPR, Do a good job. They, for the most part, just give me the news without the slant, I'll make my own decisions about what the news means.
  23. senor citizen
    Report Abuse
    senor citizen - April 01, 2013 3:34 pm
    How would you like this guy to say "won't you be my neighbor?" He didn't serve \the full !0 years in Illinois and he'll might serve a short time in Iowa.
  24. senor citizen
    Report Abuse
    senor citizen - April 01, 2013 3:27 pm
    Maybe a taser which is fatal will be released, that way all people can be better shots. I see nothing where anyone shot at this guy. They should have, as the court system doesn't work too well otherwise he would still be in the slammer.
  25. TruthOnlyBeTold
    Report Abuse
    TruthOnlyBeTold - April 01, 2013 1:42 pm
    Sometimes I turn on FOX news after I have been watching MSNBC and begin to get nauseous with all the ultra left liberal bias. So I switch to FOX to get some balance.

    So mamakelly, if I watch FOX news for 1 hour a week, how many years am I shaving off my life? Is it a 1:1 ratio? Will I be able to redeem myself by watching MSNBC for each hour I watch FOX? How about CNN, would that help my lifespan or hurt?
  26. 45acp
    Report Abuse
    45acp - April 01, 2013 1:30 pm
    So mommakelly, you assume that anybody on the right must only watch Fox??? What a stupid assumption, well rounded people mix it up... that would be like me saying you are brainwashed because you only watch CNN or CBS for example...
  27. TruthOnlyBeTold
    Report Abuse
    TruthOnlyBeTold - April 01, 2013 1:27 pm
    I am glad this guy is a bad shot and no one was injured. I thought pot made people mellow?
  28. 45acp
    Report Abuse
    45acp - April 01, 2013 1:20 pm
    I don't know of ANY gun owners that would sell to someone on the street, unless they are just as shady as the person buying in which case they wouldn't follow a background check law anyway...
  29. 45acp
    Report Abuse
    45acp - April 01, 2013 1:13 pm
    Oh really, I didn't know you needed a background check to buy a car... which, by the way, can cause just as much damage in the wrong hands as a gun...
  30. twiggy
    Report Abuse
    twiggy - April 01, 2013 12:58 pm
    Again, an example of not liking the message, so blaming the messenger. If you really cared about the topic of police hitting a target during a shoot out you would take the time to read those articles I provided previously, or even do your own research! But you won't, as the "message" wouldn't fit your beliefs. And the New York Times lies, because they don't agree with you. And the New York Police Department lies And the police training information I provided was a lie too, for the same reason. And I am "distorting" (read lie) and Aequitas is just agreeing with me because "one of your kind" distorts the truth. Predictable.
  31. aequitas
    Report Abuse
    aequitas - April 01, 2013 11:20 am
    Actually, the quote you provided reinforces twiggy's account. It doesn't imply the criminal is a better shot. It merely points out the reality that experienced, trained shooters are not very accurate when engaged with a hostile threat. The proverbial "good guy with a gun" would likely suffer from the same issues, because the skills required to shoot accurately are interrupted and diminished when countering a moving, hostile target.

    Twiggy made absolutely no assessment of the skill of the criminal.
  32. mommakelly
    Report Abuse
    mommakelly - April 01, 2013 9:23 am
    Many guns are gotten, as well, from legal gun owners when they're stolen from stores and homes. Just like the guy in Milan a while back, if gun owners do not secure their guns properly, I believe that they should be held CIVILLY accountable for any damages done by their weapons. Insurance, as well as back ground checks should be mandatory for any gun purchase...just like a vehicle.
  33. twiggy
    Report Abuse
    twiggy - April 01, 2013 9:21 am
    Easy, he posted bond. Over $19,000.00. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. Everyone has a right to a bond. Usually.
  34. geoff
    Report Abuse
    geoff - April 01, 2013 9:05 am
    The boys in blue should have commited him to a mental hospital and forced him to take anti phycotic medicene for the rest of his lowly life. They are good at that if not at shooting.
  35. mommakelly
    Report Abuse
    mommakelly - April 01, 2013 9:00 am
    In psychology we know that individuals, like those that commented above, suffer from "confirmation bias." This is the belief that only the information that fits in with your opinion is true and anything that goes against what you already believe is false. This is why Fox viewers are the least informed of any other individuals. When you only believe the information you want to believe, you lose sight of reality. Sad, actually, if you ask me. They live in such a hateful vision of the world that they are unable to enjoy the life they've been given. They won't be around as long as you and I, so there's still hope...and with individuals like this around...hope is all we can ask for
  36. aequitas
    Report Abuse
    aequitas - April 01, 2013 8:55 am
    You miss the point of universal background checks entirely. Where did he get a gun? Probably from a private seller who is not currently required to conduct a background check. If the seller was on the hook, this fella might not have had access to purchase a gun in the first place. Requiring background checks on all transfers, with the exception of transfers between immediate family members, is a minor inconvenience for responsible gun owners but a massive inconvenience for individuals who are ineligible for obtaining weapons in the primary market from obtaining weapons in the secondary market with no regulation right now. You're right that criminals break the law. But he could just as easily have obtained this gun from an honest gun owner. If that honest gun owner was required to run a background check, he wouldn't have sold that gun to the felon.

    As was pointed out elsewhere, it's not a bar. It's a strip club. The regulation on hours doesn't apply.
  37. twiggy
    Report Abuse
    twiggy - April 01, 2013 8:46 am
    I never said the police are bad shots, nor did I say crooks are good shots. Just where would you get information about the marksmanship abilities of a crook, anyway? They don't generally get in line to be tested. Dumb thing to say on your part. You must not be very good at reading, or possibly at reading comprehension. What I said is that even expert police marksmen, in a crisis situation, only hit the target between 13% and 17% of the time. And I was not making a guess, I was relaying information which is very easy to verify. But, as usual, since you dislike the information, you attack the messenger, me, the NY Times, Police Training groups, anyone .... because you don't like the information, it doesn't fit into your skewed view of reality. So, I am sure you will continue to believe what makes you happy. I would just prefer you not misstate what I actually say.
  38. ALLSIDES
    Report Abuse
    ALLSIDES - April 01, 2013 7:43 am
    I don't understand how a felon with a gun is released from jail in 2 1/2 hours??
  39. 45acp
    Report Abuse
    45acp - April 01, 2013 7:34 am
    Bingo.... just wish the left would figure this out but they just don't get it...
  40. JM1
    Report Abuse
    JM1 - March 31, 2013 8:46 pm
    QC Father: If it's a 'BYOB' club, meaning it doesn't serve alcohol, it will stay open past 2:00. The club's Facebook page says it is open until 4:00 on weekends.
  41. Family man
    Report Abuse
    Family man - March 31, 2013 7:51 pm
    Imagine that.....
  42. QC Father
    Report Abuse
    QC Father - March 31, 2013 6:20 pm
    Iowa bars close at 2:00 am. 1. Why is there a crowd outside of the bar at 3:22 am? 2. According to the law, this man is a felon... who is NOT supposed to have a gun. I wonder if he went through the proper channels to obtain that gun. 3. This is yet ANOTHER case where the criminal has a gun, when he isn't allowed to have one.

    My point, no matter how much you make responsible gun owners jump through hoops to get a gun (back ground checks, 3 day waiting list, etc) would NOT have stopped this CRIMINAL to get a gun. This is exactly the reason why I own a gun. Any kind of bans won't stop CRIMINALS from getting a gun.... you put a ban on guns, only the criminals will have them.
  43. Arc Angel
    Report Abuse
    Arc Angel - March 31, 2013 6:02 pm
    Making it rain.....with lead!
  44. Santony25
    Report Abuse
    Santony25 - March 31, 2013 5:58 pm
    Smart
  45. KJ23
    Report Abuse
    KJ23 - March 31, 2013 5:42 pm
    Luckily this idiot is a bad shot. Fired seven or eight times into a crowd, and no one was hit.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick