From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 22:04:29 GMT

In article <viking.714276649@vincent1.iastate.edu>
viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal) writes:
>
>>viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>>     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.
>
>	They are not, agreed, and thus my reasoning that pulling a gun
>at a traffic stop is wrong.  However, in the no-knock mentioned above,
>or when the cop is arresting a murderer or the like, I feel prudence
>makes a ready weapon mandatory.

     Under a no-knock situation where they are *sure* the murderer is
in residence, yes, perhaps they are justified.  I object to the use
(and increasing use) of no-knock assaults at all.  They are being more
and more used where they shouldn't be, and irresponsibly.  We also
have situations like this where a citizen ends up dead and *nobody*
is even charged.

>It's not that I grant cops any special
>powers, just that I disagree with the idea that they need to be targets
>until a bona-fide threat exhibits itself.

     They carry guns.  If they were just targets, we'd make them leave the
guns at home until there wasa threat.  Being a target comes with the badge.
It's a dangerous, thankless job.

>My crime of murder is enough,
>in my eyes, for a cop to bust me gun drawn.

     *If* you commited a murder.  *If* the police know you are there.  *If*
they have cause to believe you are armed.  Not just "because" or "maybe."

>weapon, he can shoot me.  If I don't, he can cuff me.  Let the
>lawyers battle with how my rights were violated or whatever, but I
>personally feel I need not threaten a cop directly before he is
>justified in being able to neutralize threats based upon my past behavior.

     Let's return to the situation we are discussing.  A no-knock raid
when the suspect was not there, where an unarmed woman was killed by
a police officer.

     That is not justified.  If the police officer was misinformed, then
somebody up the chain of command *must* be *at least* brought up of
something like criminal negligence.  I am not asking the police to give
up their defense, only that they be held responsible, like everybody else
when they screw up.  And if they aren't then I hope *their* bosses (the
general population) are held responsible with a *big* settlement.

>
>>     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.
>
>	When a soldier comes out, does the soldier shoot or look
>first for a weapon?

     The police are not soldiers.  Ninety-nine point nine percent don't
patrol anything even vagueles reminiscent of a battlefield.

The police don't have uniforms to distinguish
>an enemy, thus I expect other factors to make the distinction for them.
>I don't disagree, but I have my reservations depending on the situation.

     It has been my observation that because of this, police lump people
into two categories:  Cops and Not-Cops.  People with badges are your friend,
while people without badges are criminals that haven't been caught.
     I can understand this mentality to an extent.  When someone dies over
it, the cop gets thrown in the clink just like the rest of us poor schmucks
who don't get to abuse the system on a regulare basis.

>
>>     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.
>
>	Believe me, there are chiefs of police who agree with you, in
>addition to myself.
>
     If Seattle, Florida, or even Knoxville are any indications, they
are rapidly becoming the minority.


>	Being a lawful gun owner, I prefer to be thought of as
>competent by default than as incompetent until proven so.  By the
>same token, I expect the police to be competent until proven
>otherwise.  In the case we refer to, somebody was incompetent and
>should be punished.  Who that is, exactly, I don't know.  But a
>review should present such information.  I expect to be held to
>task for my usage of a weapon, and expect the same from the police.
>I think we agree here, at least in principle.
>

     Someone is dead.  *Someone* screwed up.  I don't think that is
up for debate.  I believe it was you who suggested that it wasn't
right to hold the citizenry responsible with a multi-million dollar
civil award that will do nothing but take money from the police and
raise taxes.
     As the voting population of our respective areas, were *are* at the
top of the chain of command.  If we, as the voting public, refuse to hold
our police officers responsible, then we, as the voting public, should
be prepared *ourselves* to be held responsible.

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