From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 3
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 05:36:46 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>>Bullshit!  The police stormed in with the intent of getting the perp
>>who had killed "one of us."  That cowboy with the MP5 was cocked and
>>ready to have the perp try something so he could kill him because he
>>was a "cop killer." (even if the cop may have been a rent-a-cop.)

>	If you can prove this assertation, the courts lie open to
>your pleas for justice.  If you cannot, is your assertation any better
>than mine, where I assert that the police stormed in with the intent
>of only re-arranging the living room furniture?  Are the roving band of
>interior decorators I describe a threat to anybody?

If you assert they stormed the house in the middle of the night with automatic 
weapons drawn and safetys off in order to rearrange the furniture, you're
a bigger idiot than I thought.  From my experience with cops, I bet
I could write a personality profile of Tony that would fit to a Tee 
without ever having seen the man.  

>>Let's look at your logic.  We have a perp who has allegedly killed a 
>>guard asleep in a house full of other innocents.  Since he has 
>>(allegedly) killed one cop, he would likely not hesitate in shooting
>>again.  In this circumstance, you're claiming that the safest method
>>to arrest this fellow was to storm the damn place gestapo-style?
>>How crazy can you get?

>	I note that the "gestapo-style" raids you mention are
>used by hostage-rescue teams.  

Remind us again whose life was being saved in the raid?  I seemed to have
missed that part.  Saving an inocent life that is in extreme danger is 
the only legitimate use of such tactics, after all.  Hell, that used
to even be TAUGHT to the cops.  


>It may be appropriate one place and
>situation, it may not be in another.  Certainly being prepared to
>meet an armed person in this raid is not inappropriate, so what is
>so crazy about using them where the situation dictates?  Nobody
>ever said this is the best method in all situations, only that it
>may have been best in this situation.  I think more facts are needed
>before a jury, let alone you and I at our terminals, can decide.

Just as expecting to meet an armed homeowner is to be expected if you're
burglarizing the place.  If under those conditions you kill the homeowner,
you are guilty of murder.  The same rules should apply here.  The  police 
obviously did not have probably cause based on the word of a criminal,
to go in and storm the house.  Probable cause, perhaps, to arrest the
fellow long enough to question him.  Said questioning would have, of
course, ended the incident and his wife would still be alive.  That's
the difference between police work and military or gang-style like
assaults.


>[ what I agree with deleted -- you read it once before ]

>>Bullshit, Rick.  His MP5 did nothing.  Tony loaded the weapon.  Tony
>>entered that room with the safety off and his finger on the trigger.
>>Tony pointed the weapon at the victim and Tony pulled the trigger.

>	Again, can you prove this?  If so, end this thread by taking
>it to court.  If not, doesn't Tony deserve a jury to make this decision?

Make a reasonable case that it's false.  You can't, of course.  There is
little possibility to explain the results.  Kinda hard for Tony's gun
to be pointed at that woman's head and the trigger pulled unless Tony
was doing it.  Oh, I suppose there is some non-zero possibility that
all the molecules in the gun suddenly moved such that it just pointed
at her head and went off all by its lonesome but I'd not bet on it.
At least we've got you now advocating letting a jury decide.  I'm sure
we'd all be happy with that outcome.  Unfortunately because the police
fix is in, that does not appear to be a possibility.

>	That MP5 is a machine, and subject to failure or malfunction.
>HCI card?  Yeah, I need something to light the grill with tomorrow
>afternoon.  If your car tire has a blow-out at 65mph and you hit
>another car trying to regain control, by your logic it's 100% your
>intentional action because that tire is an inanimate object and
>functioned as designed.  

You'd be surprised at how much you're considered responsible in this 
situation. It is called failure to maintain control of your vehicle
and yes, if it happened to you or I, we would be charged and tried.
That really was a perfect analogy but not in the manner you had
hoped.

>Can you see where it is *possible* that
>Tony might not be directly responsible?  Can you not also see where
>the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" as used to find somebody guilty
>*might* apply in this case?

Ah yes, always someone else's fault.  Tony could not be held responsible
for his actions.  After all, he was only obeying orders.  That attitude
may have been the rule when you were one of Hymann's boys in that hole
in the water but it does not work for civilians.  Police are civilians
too, as much as they hate the idea.  If I picked up my pistol and shot
someone who appeared to be comitting a criminal act and that person 
later turned out to be innocent, I'd be charged with murder.  Plain
and simple.  The same damn rules should apply to that cop.  He played
cowboy, he killed an inocent and he should go to jail.  The only
reasonable doubt I'd entertain would pertain to whether or not Tony's
bullet murdered that woman.  That established, if I were on the jury
that apparently will never hear the case, he'd be going to jail.

>        And if Tony was innocent, or the law didn't cover or even
>allowed his particular crime?  I say exercise your power as a voter
>and change the law, not lambaste Tony because you aren't satisfied.  

The law is already there.  It is not being enforced because tony is a 
cop.  Period.

>>Another lame attempt to depersonalize this crime.  Unless his mind has hands,
>>it did nothing.  TONY dropped the hammer on that woman.

>	Again, if you can prove it you should take that proof and use
>it to prosecute Tony at a trial.

I want to hear your attempt to claim that he DIDN'T drop the hammer on
that women.  Are you disputing that fact?  I would expect out of someone
who knows so little of the law that he thinks I could prosecute Tony 
in a trial.  Lord knows I would if I could.

>>Let's try another catagory.  Those of us who have been associated with 
>>the police long enough to know how they think, how they cover for each
>>other and how they view the public (perps and potential perps.) and 
>>see this as just another case of a civilian suffering at the hands of 
>>a police department out of control and a trigger-happy individual cop.

>The justice system is fairly impartial, and I'd like
>to see it kept that way, your or my emotions notwithstanding.

You sound like a customer for some ocean-front land in Arizona.  if you 
think there is ANYTHING impartial about the decisions regarding who is
arrested, who is prosecuted and who is convicted, you are a blithering 
idiot.  Maybe you ought to get involved and see just how the system works.
Or come down here some time and I'll give you a personal demonstration.
We'll go blazing through my town and when we get pulled over, I'll flash
my ID.  I won't get a ticket from that "impartial cop."  It works the
same way for larger crimes as it does for speeding.

BTW, you seemed to have forgotten to answer my previous question.  You know,
the one where I asked you if you'd still be as impartial and supportive
of the police after the storm YOUR house and kill someone you love.
"Oh, but I'm a fine, upstanding citizen.  That can't happen to me.
After all, I excuse anything the cops do." you say.   Funny,
I'll bet that lady and her husband and kids thought the same thing.

john
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton