HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:04:51 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics

In article <6023@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>, rpwhite@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (rpwhite) writes:
> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
> >A 19 year old nutcase was shot after she attacked a cop with a machete
> >after breaking into the Chancellor's home in Berkeley.
> 
> The first time I glanced over the headlines in the paper and saw this I
> kind of smirked and went on to other things. Later on I reread it and
> certain facts jumped out at me. Now the more I think about it, the more
> I am bothered by the question: "Why did they have to shot her?"

A couple of points on philosophy.

First off--how fast do any of us think under pressure?  If someone
is--or appears to be--attacking you, you're liable to use what is
immediately at hand to defend/counterattack.  Sure--he had mace.  But
did he have *time* to think about using it, and then pulling it out?
A lot of the second guessing (without even worrying about specific
socio-political agendas) is 'Monday morning quarterbacking.'  *We've*
got time to consider the whole thing dispationately and at our
lesiure.  The cop on the scene probably didn't have that.

Secondly--the police I know freely admit that there is a general
policy that the police are to act in a way that discourages attempts
to use force, and *especially*, to escalate force against officers.
The way this is done is to immediately escalate to what is hoped is an
unacceptable (to the person being dealt with) level.  This means you
answer knives with guns.  To object is to convince those that the cops
have to deal with everyday that you *don't* try to 'outgun' the
police.  If you think about it from the stance of keeping cops alive
(for the police, an Us-vs.-Them situation), it makes a lot of sense.
This leads to another point . . .

Third--I think one of the biggest problems facing the police today is
*fear*.  The cops are far more afraid of the crooks, than the crooks
are of the cops.  This is responsible (I think) for some of the cases
the public believes to be bizarre and unwarranted levels of force on
the part of the police force--and why the police have so much trouble
understanding the public outcry at such incidents.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:52:59 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <p98booc@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >>The cops in England are turning more to the use of guns. Of
    >>course, if we had the far more homogenous and supportive (of
    >>the police) population that England does, we might be
    >>different too.
    >>
    >If the cops did not kill so many people where it was
    >unnecessary, they might have more support.

And if we didn't have looting riots where fire trucks are shot at, or
homosexual riots where police cars are overturned and burned or ...

    >Here is my challenge. Given the facts of the situation (ie,
    >they knew this woman was dangerous, since they had evacuated
    >the house. They knew she was there so they could have had
    >their weapons out. They should be trained to handle dangerous
    >people without killing them, at least they should be...) what
    >excuse did they have for killing this woman?
    >
    >The problem is, cops in this country have decided that the
    >way to go about law enforcement is by shooting people. And
    >because people like you are willing to say "they had no
    >choice" they can continue killing people...

First, I, and from what I've heard, neither do you, have the exact facts
about what went on.

My first reaction, upon hearing the news, was that the cop must have slipped
or fell or otherwise been "trapped". I read a posting just now that says
the cop fell backwards into a bathtub. In which case, the autopsy will show
the bullets entering below and travelling up through the body.

Secondly, it seems that the cops knew who was in the house. Remember, this
fun loving person was soon to show up in court for the lovely charges
of possesion of bombs and bomb making stuff. She had also had violent
outburst before.

Third, we can not afford to surround every house with dozens of men,
to wait 24-48 hours to wait out the suspect and get 'em peacefully.
We send in as few (1 or 2 in most cases) as possible to do the job.

I believe that EVERY individual, cops included, has a foremost and
primary right to protect his/her life, AND that that individual does
NOT have to "flee" instead of acting in self-defense. The cop had a
RIGHT to be there, the kook didn't. The cop had a right to his life,
the kook had no right to take it. The cop was acting in the protection
of the lives and property of other people -- the kook was a self-admitted
asshole looking to destroy.

Why are you so cocerned with the criminal, and so little concerned with the
victim?




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4878 alt.activism:15643 ca.politics:7219 talk.politics.misc:42712 talk.bizarre:27920
From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:05:53 GMT
  <64791@cup.portal.com> <1992Aug28.213331.9127@pacdata.uucp>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Jim Harkins:
: Nice to know you've got an open mind on this.If I'm holding a gun on somebody
: and they come at me I'll shoot.  Probably 15 times before stopping for 1.2
: seconds to reload.  I don't care if they're armed or not.  If they're crazy
: enough to attack then god knows what they'll do if they get my gun away.
: And if you think I'll take the chance of losing the gun to a 100 pound 
: lunatic then your elevator doesn't quite reach the top floor.

Poor Baby.

: I suppose if the cop used mace and got his hand chopped off you'd bitch about
: paying him disability for life. He's only a pig who was poorly trained, after
: all.  Some peoples kids.

Mace? Don't be daft.
 
"If they're crazy enough to attack?" Welcome to talk.bizarre (other groups
may read along). I suppose he wasn't even expecting anyone crazy, right?
I mean, it's rare for a cop to have that problem with people day in, day
out, and especially when they've publicly taken a stand in an evacuated
building on a matter of principle.

There's no "if" about expecting craziness here, and even someone with quite
ordinary common sense can figure that out. "God knows" indeed; the guy was
either poorly trained or lost it. Remember all the myriad other weapons
and options he doubtless had at his disposal, and a certain body weight
advantage into the bargain.

One shot suffices to hit the shoulder, arm, or even chest. Back up
swiftly and draw the billy club....
 
O sorry; I forgot. You'd have shot her in the head ten times already,
so I guess I'm wasting my time.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant | Would You Like Fries With That?                 |
| poisoned electric head |              andrew_-_palfreyman@cup.portal.com |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:30:29 GMT

In article <p94njbc@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>Despite all the gun statistics, no one has explained to me why this woman
>had to be killed.

Because the cop in question didn't have any other options when she
advanced after he fell into a bathtub.

The interesting decisions were made long before he fell, let alone
before the trigger was pulled.  Those decisions won't be questioned.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5002 ca.politics:7387
From: bickford@Apple.COM (Pete Bickford)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:19:07 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

>In article <1992Aug31.205052.18359@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:

>>> Easy for you to say... My lover works at SF general in psychiatric
>>> emergency (where they get their fair share of psychotic people).  They
>>> have yet to have to kill someone to subdue them.
>>
>>Do they arrive, armed and loose?  Is your lover alone in a confined
>>space?

>Armed, sometimes... Last week, someone slipped through with a large
>knife.  Loose?  Yes...  Confined space?  You have never been near a psych
>ward, have you?

>>> Tell me, what would
>>> the police have done in England, where the cops do not use guns?  
>>
>>That officer would have died. 

>Bullshit.  I don't believe for a second that a trained cop with one
>of the handled billy clubs could not have stopped a crazy person with
>a machete.   More so, two cops with clubs could certainly have stopped
>her.  Why was this cop in a situation, where he knew what he was up against,
>without backup?  Answer, because he knew in a pinch he could just kill
>her.


>You are rationalizing excessive force.


>FWA


Jeff, after reading your, ahem, interesting view of the matter, I feel
obliged to point out how really !@#!@# out of touch with reality you are.
I mean, cripes! Get a clue!

Or, what might be more interesting, get yourself trained as a policeman,
and try to calmly take down the next machete wielding psycho in the manner
you so arrogantly suggest from the comfort of your computer chair.

Get a clue, dude.
-Doc
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4769 alt.activism:15411 talk.politics.misc:41841
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Political Correctness (was Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective))
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:51:23 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1715cmINNaf1@agate.berkeley.edu> jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.153423.9418@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>>>>2.  As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among straight males
>>>>>>is that the ugly ones are welcome to do whatever the heck they want,
>>>>>>but the pretty ones are such a waste.

>and then argues that this statement is some kind of ordained truth, and
>that anyone who disagrees is afraid of the truth.

It isn't ordained truth.  It's just truth.  So far, no one has
actually posted "I disagree with this statement."

>I do not doubt that there are a large number of men who believe this; it's
>certainly a strong prejudice in our culture, and in many others, that the
>most important thing about a woman is her physical appearance.  

Yup.

>But I very
>much doubt that this is the "dominant reaction", since there are several
>competing prejudices, like the fundie one that says that all lesbians are
>evil, so that the "ugly ones" are NOT welcome to do what they want,

And how many Fundies are there?

>and
>the "Basic Instinct" reaction, that's they're all evil psycho
>killers,

I'm not aware of this one except in the fantasies of the insufferably PC.

>as
>well as several others (like "they're all welcome to do whatever the heck
>they want", which is probably still a minority opinion, has a large number
>of adherents).

Yup.

Which do you think is dominant?

>Since you don't have poll data to back you up, what you're really doing is
>spouting your own personal prejudices, and using the "most straight males"
>line as an excuse.  

Is that true of everyone who posts what thyey think most people
believe without polls to back them up?

What do you think the dominant reaction is?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5011 ca.politics:7401
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: ACTIVISM: Protest Against California Budget
Date: Thu,  3 Sep 92 00:22:28 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: ba

Someone's upset because of this:
>
>	Why:  Huge cuts in secondary education, aid to families
>	      with dependent children, etc., etc.

What do they think should have been cut instead?  Or what taxes do they
think should have been raised?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 18:44:14 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <p9arrj8@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >Bullshit. I don't believe for a second that a trained cop
    >with one of the handled billy clubs could not have stopped a
    >crazy person with a machete. More so, two cops with clubs
    >could certainly have stopped her. Why was this cop in a
    >situation, where he knew what he was up against, without
    >backup? Answer, because he knew in a pinch he could just kill
    >her.

Brandon Lee, the son of the martial arts star Bruce Lee, was trained
by his dad starting at age 2 (Jeet Kune Do) and is now starting to make
"kung fu" movies like his dad. From all accounts, he is very well trained
at quite capable, having been at it since age 2 (now 27).

He is now 6' tall.

Two years ago, a burglar broke into his apartment, and when surprised by
Brandon, threatened him with a kitchen knife. The burglar lunged at Brandon,
slashing him on the left arm.

The burglar in turn received a separated shoulder and broken arm.

Now, if a highly trained martial arts type like Brandon confronts a burglar
(which I assume is not trained in much of anything, hence is a burglar)
and can disarm ( :-) ) the burglar only by receiving a slashed arm, then
just what do we expect from a cop, who is not training 8 hours a day for
the last 25 years of his life???



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre
From: jimh@pacdata.uucp (Jim Harkins)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: Pacific Data Products
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:33:31 GMT

In article <64791@cup.portal.com> lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman) writes:
>actually, the filth shot three times.
>guess she didn't crumple fast enough for his taste.

Nice to know you've got an open mind on this.  If I'm holding a gun on somebody
and they come at me I'll shoot.  Probably 15 times before stopping for 1.2
seconds to reload.  I don't care if they're armed or not.  If they're crazy
enough to attack then god knows what they'll do if they get my gun away.
And if you think I'll take the chance of losing the gun to a 100 pound 
lunatic then your elevator doesn't quite reach the top floor.

I suppose if the cop used mace and got his hand chopped off you'd bitch about
paying him disability for life.  He's only a pig who was poorly trained, after
all.  Some peoples kids.

jim

-- 
Lawyers Creed:  What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Harkins                         [ucsd|uunet]!pacdata!jim
Pacific Data Products               jim@pacdata.com
--------------------------------------------------------------

Xref: sparky ba.politics:4817 alt.activism:15527 ca.politics:7110 talk.politics.misc:42323
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:28:44 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Aug27.003932.27113@s1.gov>, Loren I. Petrich writes:
In article <64717@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
:Anybody out there agree with these nutcases?

Not at all. I expect this woman was a few geese short of a gaggle. If she had
broken into my home and attacked me with a machete, she'd be quite dead, too. 

I also think that if there are riots over the conviction of the four young men 
who beat Reg. Denny,  sympathy for the rioters will approach zero all over 
the nation. The Nat. Guard, cops, and military will already be deployed during
their trial....just watch.  

>	Related question: how many out there relish the antics of such
>characters as "proof" that anyone not to the right of David Duke is a
>menace to civilization?

Probably quite a few, unfortunately.....Arthur Hu among them. But very few
who weren't already of that opinion...

JZ
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: What crimes would Denovo be charged with?
Date: 2 Sep 1992 07:29:42 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

Had Denovo been alive today, what would be the charges?
1. Breaking and entering private property
2. Possession of deadly weapons (an 18inch machete and a 6inch hunting knife)
3. Possible intent to kill and murder
	(why enter Tien's House in the first place?  Why enter with two
	 deadly weapons?  Is there a motive? (Something to do with Tien
	 building things in People's park and Denovo carrying a letter
         concerning "People's Will Direct Action Committee" which demanded
  	 that UC stop construction at people's park, etc.)  Why did many
  	 of her writings involve intent to do harm?  In fact, one of her
         plans involved "hide by stairs + use machete on anything walking
	 up.")
     If she was successful, she might have been charged with 1st degree
     murder as she obviously took pains to
 	1) dye her hair dark from its natural blonde color
	2) wore surgical gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints
	3) she brought a blow-torch and a glass cutter
 	4) in her writings, she wrote that she had cased Tien's house
	   before for any alarms, possible points of breakthrough, etc.
4. Resisting Arrest
5. Assault and attempt to kill an officer of the law.

Anyone have any others?

And if she had been convicted, how many years would she get?  Best Case
and Worst Case scenarios?


Xref: sparky ba.politics:4952 ca.politics:7325 talk.politics.misc:43152
From: rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:33:26 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <12052@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.051305.1235@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>> In article <11973@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>PR24.  It's plastic, not metal.
>
It's Kevlar, not plastic.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Russell Hockins             |  This civilization is recyclable             |
| Innovative Interfaces, Inc. |                ( well most of it anyway )    |
|                           packet : ka6foy @ ki6yk.#nocal.ca.na.usa         |
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: First Clayton and Melinda, next Serbia & Croatia!
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:01:40 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <95356@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >In article <12129@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP
    >(Clayton Cramer) writes:
    >
    >>Or maybe I will take the collection of garbage I've been
    >>collecting from soc.motss and turn it over to Lou Sheldon at
    >>the Traditional Values Coalition and the Yes on 9 campaign in
    >>Oregon. You know what powerful ammunition this stuff is for
    >>their side.
    >>
    >Listen, whoever is harrassing you is clearly an asshole, but
    >if you do what you threaten, you are exposing yourself as a
    >hypocrite. Lou Sheldon is a cultural fascist, someone you
    >should love to hate.

O.K. -- yeah, this is futile, but, can we stop the flame fest?

I mean, Jeff Dauber and I had lunch yesterday, and it's hard to find
two people that disagree more. It was a fun lunch and Jeff was very nice.
Of course, the assualt rifle I was carrying along with the 400 rounds of ammo
might have had something to do with it, :-) but it was a nice lunch.

1. Clayton clearly sees much/most homosexual "culture"/mores as being at odds
   with some definition of family values and western civilization. I tend
   to agree.

2. Clayton expects non-coercive organizations to shun NAMBLA. To not do
   so is to imply SOME level of support. I agree. Coercive organziations
   should NOT shun NAMBLA -- like the Skokie NAZI marchers, the group has
   the same right to get parade permits, to assemble, etc. But we can always
   boo them as they march.

3. Clayton has painted himself in a corner. This is bad. But haven't
   we all had our hot buttons pushed?

4. Many homosexual posters have been intellectually dishonest, and responded
   only to some small part of Clayton's posts and twisted it into a
   supposed homophobic post. I.e., y'all have been very busy pushing his
   buttons. This is bad too!

I'm sick of the debate getting lost in the noise.

Could we start anew? For example, can we DEFINE "family values" and THEN
flame our little hearts out?



Of course, if this plea actually works (ha!), I'm going over to Serbo-Croatia
and will tell them to stop fighting ....



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: correction - Grand Opening - Genis for U.S. Senate HQ
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:41:57 GMT

         Grand Opening - Genis for U.S. Senate Headquarters

                Thursday, September 3, 1992, 7-9 pm
                         1806 Market Street
                      San Francisco, CA  94102

Building is near the corner of Octavia and Market.  This is a pie
shaped block with Waller hitting Octavia just past Market.  If
you're driving you can take Market to Octavia to Waller and drive to
the end of the block where Waller dead-ends into the U.C. Extension
parking lot on Laguna.  Parking there is $3.00 for the whole evening
and they're open until 11 pm.

In addition to June Genis, Mary Gingell, National Chair of the
Libertarian Party will also be speaking.  Wine and cheese will be
served.  A $5.00 donation is suggested to cover expenses.  For
further information contact Jerry Pico at 415-554-0388.

People outside the Bay Area who wish to obtain campaign information
can call 1-800-894-JUNE.