From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 05:14:26 GMT

In article <viking.714190353@vincent1.iastate.edu>
viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>
>In <3154@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
>
>>You are missing a critical difference Dan:
>
>>Soldiers deal with the enemy.
>>Police officers deal with SUSPECTS.
>>Soldiers kill or disable the enemy as quickly and as efficiently as
>>they can.  Soldiers can assume anybody in a enemy emplacement is,
>>in fact, an enemy.
>
>	As may cops, when one starts talking about house-to-house
>fighting or any place where civilians may be, along with soldiers.

     No.  Any person a police officer may attempt to apprehend is
a citizen  Period.  He has no justification to decide before-hand,
nor do his superiors, that such-and-such a citizen is "the enemy"
or that the police may consider any person they find in some area
as "the enemy."
     Police officers are not soldiers.  They are not fighting a war.
Their opponents are not one like-minded foe.

>There were an awful lot of civilian deaths in the wars since World
>War I, and I suspect this is due to civilians and soldiers being in
>the same place.  One is obviously a non-combatant, but can we
>reasonably expect the cop, or the soldier, to make an accurrate
>evaluation 100% of the time?

     Suspects or criminals are not "combatants" unless they present
an immediate threat.  It absurd to suggest that the police should
patrol in full-body kevlar armor and pull sub-machineguns on shop-
lifters.
     We expect mistakes to happen.  Police are human.  That is why
we both expect mistakes from good people and try and limit the power
available for abuse from bad people.
     But when somebody screws up and somebody *dies* it is not enough
to say, "Well, mistakes happen."

>Police deal with suspects, I agree.  I figure there is no reason to
>draw a weapon at a routine traffic stop, but when attempting to
>arrest a person charged with a crime that shows the suspect is armed
>and dangerous, is it not reasonable to act as if the suspect were
>armed and dangerous, rather than just a harmless person who will
>willingly come along?

     It is certainly reasonable.  But it is the police's responsibility
to make sure they have the right suspect, and that their information
regarding his armament is as accurate as it is possible to be.
     The police more and more are relying on innacruate information
which can't be verified, such as anonymous tips.  It is flat out
irresponsible all the way up the command line to send a SWAT assault
team into a house with children without at least determining whether
the suspect was even there.

>>Police arrest suspects for trial and defend themselves if the suspects
>>prove dangerous.  Police officers don't get to assume anybody is
>>dangerous,  that must be proved by the suspect.  Police officers can't
>>assume everybody in a residence is a suspect.  Since an unarmed women
>>gathering up children presents no immediate danger the officer should
>>go to jail for a long time.
>
>	The details of the situation are not known to us, and I am
>highly torqued that no trial or review will be held to make the
>facts known.  Still, I presented no danger when the screw in my
>ankle set of the airport metal detector.  I was unarmed.  The police
>did draw guns, but also relaxed and secured them when it became clear
>I was not a threat.  Why do I think this proper?  The place was
>Washington D.C. and the time was three days after the start of the
>ground war in Iraq.  In the same situation, I would have acted in a
>similar manner.

     Understand my reservations.  When the police can kill someone
without fear of reprisal, what is there to stop those bad apples
mentioned above from abusing their power?  All you examples assume
that the police officer is aware, careing, and competent.  Not all,
or even most in some places, of police officers qualify for this.

>Likewise, anybody breaking into my house is met with
>a shotgun, and I don't put it down until I am certain they are either
>unarmed and leaving, or somebody I know and trust enough to do so.  I
>cannot fault police if they believe what they are told and act in a
>manner that protects themselves.  Going in guns drawn hurts nobody,
>but might save an officer if the suspect draws a weapon.

     A woman is dead.  DEAD.  That is hurt enough in my book.
It reminds me of the local police officer who killed a woman by
shooting here in the back of a the head when his Glock discharged
accidentally (twice).
     If the police are told a dangerous criminal is there, then
guns drawn are perhaps justified.  If they storm someone's house
with guns drawn and their information is wrong, *somebody* along
the line has screwed up bad enough to *lose their job!*
     Even if no one is physically injured, it is emotionally
devestating to have your home assaulted by an armed squard.  Police
do *not* treat occupants in these situations gently.  They are usually
thrown to the ground and spent several long minutes (eternities) with
some angry looking man pointing a gun at their head.

>At this point,
>is the suspect still to be considered harmless?  Note that I do not
>think guns drawn means finger on the trigger and ready to blast away,
>but I do figure the cops can protect themselves just as I can.

     The police officer is more than welcome to defend himself.  He
better be *damn* sure that the individual presents a threat.

>                        Should the bank guard notice something
>"funny" about the "suspected" customer, is he not justified in
>being prepared?  Releasing the safety strap, or drawing the weapon,
>should not be done just because one customer looks nervous.  But,
>intuition may say something more, and not being in that position
>and knowing what was felt, I'm willing to give the police the same
>leeway I expect when I find somebody strange prowling around my
>house at night.  He may be looking for a lost dog, but I'm a fool
>to not prepare and be ready for him to be Public Enemy #1.
>
     We are not discussing whether the police have the right to
be prepared.  What we're discussin is whether it is an "ok" mistake
if a bank guard shoots down a customer who is pulling a pen from his
jacket pocket.  *I* expect he'll be arrested, tried, and probably
go to jail.
     This is what happens to police officers who screw up the
same way.

>I don't particularly care what
>the socio-economic reasons are for purposes of this discussion, but
>the fact stands on its own.  Now then, again I was not entirely
>clear in my assumptions.  I refer you to the anecdote above where I
>was in a Washington D.C airport.  Had I a bulge in my pants that was
>likely a gun, would it not have been entirely appropriate for the
>police to draw guns, aim them, and remove me from the area?  I would
>think it so, given the situation.

     How about putting his hand on his sidearm and asking, "What is
that in your pocket, sir?"

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================