From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:33:42 GMT
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH

As quoted from <5zjnz_n.adamsr@netcom.com> by adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams):

> >	Notice the qualification.  "If they come at me"
> >
> >	Clear yet?
> >
> 	Sure. If anyone gets in your way, shoot the sucker!

That's not what he said.  He said "If they come at me".  Why would you "come
at" an armed man, except to disarm him, likely with the intention of killing
or maiming him with the weapon?

> 	That's clear.

Only to the mendacious.

> 	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?

It is preferable to having her kill me with my own gun.  As a compromise can I
pistol whip her?

> 	How Butch of you!

I leave such characterizations to those unsure of their own sexuality.

> 	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.

At what point do you get to keep her from taking the gun away.  The other 
homophobic material I will not address, as it is merely the product of a small
mind and no couth.

> 	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!

OR unless you can prove that she was trying to take the gun.

> >> 	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!

You seem to have some sort of fixation.  I guess it helps you avoid
substantive conversation.

> >	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!

An interesting comment coming from somebody, the depth of whose "psychological"
pronouncements never gets beyond homophobic and juvenile.

> >	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.

They didn't attack her... unless not letting somebody decapitate you is an 
attack.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15658 ca.environment:843 ba.general:3605 sci.environment:10927 talk.environment:3441 bit.listserv.scuba-l:1832