From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:34:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man): 

>In article <tzhn3jg.adamsr@netcom.com>, adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>> 
>> JIM> If I'm holding a gun on somebody and they come at me I'll 
>                                	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>				
>> JIM> shoot.  Probably 15 times before stopping for 1.2 seconds 
>> JIM> to reload.  I don't care if they're armed or not.
>>                  ^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^
>>  
>
>	Notice the qualification.  "If they come at me"
>
>	Clear yet?
>
	Sure. If anyone gets in your way, shoot the sucker!

	That's clear.

	Never mind that the person might be unarmed - if she is silly enough
to "come at you" while you have that trusty steel phallus in your hand
"proving" how macho you are, she deserves to die, right?

	How Butch of you!

>> ME> Anyone who would shoot down an unarmed 100 lb mentally ill woman
>> ME> (which you just said you would do) needs therapy, not firearms!
>> 
>> 	NOW does the statement make sense?
>> 
>
>	Nope.  You take his statement about being attacked by someone and then
>say "gosh, he's going to shoot old ladies!".
>
>	I don't care *who* is doing the attacking, 100lb women or little green
>men, if you are attacked you have the right to defend yourself.
>
	Really?

	Somehow, I just don't think you're in touch with reality.

	Try explaining to a jury that you just shot an unarmed woman 15
times because she "came at you" and watch how quickly you end up spending a
rather extended time with men who don't NEED to wiggle their metal phallus
to prove that they're macho. Let me know when it happens and I'll be sure to
send you a gift to "ease" your transition to your new life style - a family
sized jar of vasoline would seem appropriate.

	The use of a firearm is justified (legally) ONLY when the individual
has reasonable grounds to believe their life is in danger - and being
attacked by an unarmed 100 lb woman  (unless you can prove that she is an
expert in unarmed combat) very definately DOESN'T provide such grounds!

>> 	How about handling the situation more intelligently in the first
>> place? The woman was isolated in the house. There were NO potential victims
>> accessible to her. 
>
>	The cop told her to freeze.  She attacked him.  It was remarkable that
>only four shots were fired.
>
	I agree. For a gun nut to stop at only four shots must be like
coitus interruptus!

>>She was known to be mentally unstable and armed with a
>> machete. 
>
>	"She was know to be mentally unstable".  You have proof that the police
>knew both who she was and what her mental state was at the time of the
>incident?

	It's in the police report that was publicized. They knew who she
was, and they knew she was mentally ill. . Given these two FACTS specific
knowledge of her mental state at the instant could have been reasonably
infered.

>	Even then, an armed lunatic is not exactly the kind of person who
>listens to reason.
>
	Which is a pretty good reason for not storming the house rather than
taking a more negotiatory tack. BTW, don't try to tell us how the mind of a
mentally ill individual will respond - you don't have the knowledge to back
your statement - if you did you wouldn't have used the term lunatic!

>> Was there any NEED to rush in instead of either attempting
>> negotiations or at least using tear gas? 
>
>	Yes.  There were potential hostages.
>
	Who? The family had been evacuated and there was no one in the house
until the police entered.

	If there WERE potential hostages, I might agree with them storming
the place, but the had been removed.  Try reading the facts of the case
before arguing about it.

	The ONLY justification for not trying negotiation or non-lethal
methods was to protect the Chancellor's house against property damage. Given
that the police knew she was armed and could therefore accurately estimate
the likelihood that she would be killed by a cop, the only reasonable
conclusion which that leads to is that the property was more important that
a human life!

>> Or was the risk of damaging the
>> Chancelor's house with gas fumes more important than attempting to subdue an
>> emotionally unstable woman without killing her?
>
>	Nope, the need to keep innocent people alive overrode her right to be
>armed, crazy, and attack people.
>
	Who were these mythical "innocent people?" There was no one there but
her until the cops stormed the place!

>> 	In most situations involving a "cornered" suspect, the cops are
>> willing to take the time to "talk" them out. Why the rush to charge in this
>> time? Even more important, why is a man who was fired from one force for
>> repeated use of excessive force working for another one rather than
>> permanently barred from law enforcement employment?
>
>	Why did she attack them?  Why should then not defend themselves?
>
	She attacked them because she was mentally disturbed, because she
was terrified, and because she didn't (in her state) realize that
alternatives existed. More important is the question of why they attacked
her, rather than trying for a non-lethal resolution to the situation.


-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan) 
Newsgroups: alt.activism