From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 09:51:25 GMT

In <1571@tnc.UUCP> m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:


>There is one nit I need to pick on this subject, Dan.

	Nit away -- this is how we learn, isn't it?

>In every post of yours on this subject, I see the same assumption. 
>The one where the police are here to protect citizens.

	I assume this based on the idea that the laws which are made
to regulate my behavior are so I do not infringe upon the rights of
others while engaged in such behavior.  I note that picking my nose is
not infringing on others, but that human sacrifice certainly is.  There
are certainly laws that do not assume such, and I base my observation
of such laws on my own discretion.  For example, laws that say I can
only drive 55mph don't infringe on your rihgt to travel, but they might
infringe on your right to life, and hence I obey them.  A law that
says I must wear a seatbelt I disregard *unless* proof is given that my
not wearing the belt causes an infringement upon you.  Taking this back to
the police above, I assume the laws are such that my rights are not
over-riding yours, and visa-versa.  The police only enforce those laws,
and I expect them to do that job.  It is up to us, as citizens, to
decide which laws we expect them to enforce.  Your point is well taken.

>Police are here for one purpose: detention of those who violate a law.
>Protection is at best a secondary function voluntarily assumed, as
>there are laws and legal precedents at all levels that say there is no
>legal obligation for a police officer to protect an individual
>citizen.
>If you don't already have it, I'll be more than happy to re-post
>"Dial 911 and Die" for your edification.

	I note the above, and have a copy at hand for those times when
I really do think life is good in these United States.  However, I
do note that "most" laws doesn't equate with "all" laws, and I am
certainly for the removal of those laws with infringe upon my rights
and yet protect nobody from my actions.  Granted, the police are not
there to protect my rights and freedoms directly -- but I think they
exist to apprehend people who have shown themselves (via incidents)
to violate my rights for their own edification.  Thus, I figure a
murderer tries to take away my right to life, and the police are
supposed to protect me against such by arresting.  My rights must
be violated before such protection can start.  This means I must
at least be threatened before I can expect the police to intervene.

	This is a "public" violation, if you follow my terminology.
Anybody is fair game for a murderer.  A "stalker" after me is not
enough for the police to respond should their resources not allow that
I be protected by police escort.

	Getting back to the case of the SWAT team member, Tony, I am
oblidged to protect my rights and yet protect his.  I see no easy
way of doing this.  I can only hope that my rights as shown in the
Bill of Rights, and his (supposed, only a jury can decide) violations
of those rights are handled by a court of Law so the pose only a
"private" threat to me and are not allowed to become a "public"
threat by keeping him (if he is guilty) on the force.

	I admit, I won't judge him given only what I know as posted
on the net.  I also think he deserves the same rights I enjoy.  The
problem lies in determining what it takes before either of us needs
to appear before that jury and justify our actions in the face of
what we (possibly) percieve as a threat.  Tony may have been thinking
of protecting the life of an 8 year-old, but I don't know.  I might
kill a cop protecting the life an an 80 year-old.  In each case, the
upholding of a right to life is given.  Who is guilty, and who is
innocent, who's rights were violated, and who was being protected I
believe a jury is best left to handle.

	I do appreciate your input on this discussion.  My defense
lies in the belief that most laws are engineered with the best
proptection of my rights in mind.  I specific instances I am
going to be quite wrong (as in where an anonymous informant gives
the police a tip and they justify a no-knock raid because if it),
but I think the majority of laws are made with such in mind.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >