From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 05:15:18 GMT

dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:

>In article <viking.714019331@vincent1.iastate.edu
> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>   What I'm posting here is this: I don't know all the facts, and I do
>   not pretend to.  All I say is that given the same situation I
>   wonder if he intentionally murdered her, or not.  A shot to the
>   neck is a lucky shot, and the trooper in quesiton was lucky (bad
>   luck, that is).  Given the same, I would hope for a board if
>   inquiry and then a fair trial, not a reader of talk.politics.guns
>   passing judgement based on what another posted and her kids saw.  I
>   merely ask for justice on fact, not emotion.

>I agree; however, my criteria seem to differ considerably from yours.
>If they are unfair, I can sympathize for the officer forced to operate
>under them; however, I refuse to lower them.  I will NOT apply the
>same rules to police officers as to soldiers under fire in a war zone,
>in unfriendly country.  I am shocked that anyone would suggest it.

	This I did not reference in my previous post, and I feel I need
to explain myself.  I think the police and the military have similar roles
outside of full-blown wars of conquest.  Both are military organizations,
and follow a chain of command that insulates the lowest, but puts the
responsibility on the highest.  Both are involved in actions against
what are hostile enemies.  Thus, I consider both the "war crimes" that
a soldier may do and the "civil crimes" a cop may do to be the same.
While a cop rarely has to go up against 105mm Howitzers, the soldier
rarely has to clear a house of hostiles while considering the stray shots
that may hit the house next door, or the apartment upstairs.

	I'm not talking about traffic cops any more than I am the shore
patrol, though both may find hostile people at any time.  Both have that
degree of uncertainty, which they must deal with.  I'm talking more about
the grunt who has been told that building A contains people who wish to
kill him, and it's his job to secure it.  The soldier might call in
artillery fire, but the police have no such option.  The police have to
try to protect their own lives and the lives of the citizen, and it is
a certainty that there will be screw-ups.  Let's let the individual be
responsible, and let the information from his superiors be used against
his superiors if possible, but let's not fault a person for a screw-up
without looking at *all* the evidence.  If I were in Vietnam and saw a
person in black pajamas running towards me, am I justified in shooting?
Am I only justified when they toss a grenade, or am I only justified
when that satchel charge they carry on their back explodes well past my
position?  I think cops face the same uncertainty, and while I don't like
it when they screw up, the killer with the 9mm in his pants need not
kill a cop before others are justified in opening fire.  Just the sight
of the weapon, or even the bulge, is enough to justify drawing and
aiming weapons in my opinion.  Note I didn't say "fire," but I trust
you see why I can equate the two occupations in this day and age.

<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. >