From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 04:10:38 GMT


**WARNING:**  This is seriously long.  I would change the subject line to
include this, but those using thread-based newsreaders might like it here
and not in the subject line.  I figure the first line is sufficient warning
to skip to the next article if you're not really interested.  You have
been warned.  Incidentially, I'm of the opinion that this is interesting
reading and great fodder for pondering.

osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:

>In article <viking.714190353@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>
>>In <3154@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
>>
>>>Soldiers deal with the enemy.
>>>Police officers deal with SUSPECTS.
>>
>>	As may cops, when one starts talking about house-to-house
>>fighting or any place where civilians may be, along with soldiers.

>	NO NO NO!  The police do NOT have tha same prerogative as a soldier,
>	except in certain very NARROWLY defined cases.

	I screwed up.  Change that to "As may soldiers, when one starts
talking about house-to-house fighting or any place where civilians may be,
along with soldiers."  My apologies for not catching that.  What I was
referring to were cases where soldiers have to deal with civilians, and
thus check targets rather carefully.  The following paragraph shows this.
For the record, I agree with you, and make note of those "very NARROWLY
defined cases."  It's not a war we're fighting, sound bites and nifty
political propaganda calling it so notwithstanding, and I don't think
it requires the same rules of combat a soldier enjoys -- they must be
more restrictive.  That doesn't mean don't be prepared, it means
don't use force where it isn't required.

>>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.  

>	Well, yes, but the reason this was so was due to a quantum change
>	in the way war was to be waged.  In olden times (hack... cough)
>	the armies met in desolate areas and fought.  Now they fight anywhere
>	the damned please and don't give a shit who dies as a result. Shameful
>	if you ask me.

	This reminds me.  We've had organized crime shooting it out for
decades, and at least fifty years of gangs in major cities like New
York City, Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago, LA, etc...  What has been the
fundamental change?  It's not drugs, I don't think.  It think it's
that they've quit, in the case of the gangs, of keeping the violence
between themselves.  At the same time, it appears that the orgainzed
crime business has been fairly quiet and not too violent.  Even the
Hells Angels, reputed to be fighting with the Mafia for control of
illegal activities in certain areas, are keeping a low profile.  The
constant here is illegal activities and substances, but the violence
level shown by the more "mature" organizations seems to be lower.  I
may just be missing the news, since there's little news of this in
my region (though Omaha, Nebraska is reputed or rumored to be a
HQ for a few of these "mature" organization, thus giving us loads of
potential).  Perhaps the violence is just more selective?  It's almost
as if the Crypts and Bloods (to name the most widely known) are now
throwing temper tantrums to try and get noticed?  What do you all think?

	While pondering this with some friends, one mentioned that the
thing to do is meet with organized crime members and strike a deal,
whereby they keep the gangs under control for their own profit, and
police are diverted to keeping citizens safe from the violent
criminals instead of trying to bust the illegal numbers racket.  I
find this an interesting perspective, and would like comment under
a new header if anybody has opinions on the matter.

>>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?  

>	No, but there is an extremely narrow range of circumstances under
>	which such screw ups are acceptable and most that I have seen in the
>	news seem to be well outside of that range.  A cop certainly has the
>	right to defend his life, just as anyone else does, but they also 
>	have AT LEAST the same obligation to act responsibly, if not even more
>	so given their repsonsibility to the public trust.  Poosible injury is 
>	an occupational hazard that must be accpted by a cop or they have no 
>	business doing this for a living.  I also think that the current state
>	of our nation WRT the high anixiety of police is clearly indicative 
>	that many of the laws they are charged with enforcing are not good 
>	laws.  People therefore regard them with contempt.

	Agreed 100%!  I don't get the news here in Iowa that you might.  Here,
the papers are holding front-page stories if a motorcyclist hits 120mph
running from the cops!  Based on what you and others have implied, I think
I'll stay -- it sounds like I'm in as close to Utopia as can be found.

>>Just like the toy gun you refer to
>>below, if people are shooting at you everybody looks like a target.

>	If this is so you have no business being a cop.  If you don't have
>	the discipline to do the right thing then you become as big a menace
>	to our society as the criminal, and in some ways even bigger.

	Looking like a target is one thing.  Actually being a target is
another.  When hunting pheasant I am expected to hold my fire until I
have identified the sex of the bird.  Given about 150 feet of effective
range with a 12ga against a pheasant, that's not a whole lot of time.
When a group flushes, I can pick out the roosters and shoot them.  I
expect the same fire control from the cops.  They all look like targets
to me, but I'm quite careful to only fire on the ones that are legitimate
targets.  This example doesn't necessarially have the consequences that
a cop firing upon citizens caught in a cross-fire does.  What happens
when I'm in the woods and point my shotgun towards the bush that moved?
Let's say I'm after a wounded snipe, known to reduce unprotected
ankles to a pile of shredded flesh in half a second.  Firing because it
could be that snipe in the bush is irresponsible and stupid.  It just
might be another hunter answering to the call of nature, as it were.
Given that the snipe is so potentially dangerous, I figure pointing my
shotgun towards the bush is prudent and reasonable.  Keeping it slung
and unloaded is not.  Shooting at the bush just in case it concealed
the snipe is stupid and reckless.  No, I am perfectly justified in
seeing that bush as a target, but not firing unless that's the target
I need to shoot.  In this example, I'd not even aim the weapon, nor
point it at the bush (just towards, if you take my meaning, say in
that compass reading but not elevated), as I consider that being more
dangerous than prudent.  The discipline you mention above is the
crucial part.  Tony (<insert Arlo Guthrie's voice and some guitar
strumming> "remember Tony?  There used to be a thread about Tony...")
appears not to have had it.  Other members of the team appear to have
had it.  I leave you to draw the comparison to Tony and his team
members and Oswald/Hinkley/killer and responsible gun owners.  How
can I deny to others what I reserve for myself?

>>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

>	First of all,  when you go to arrest someone, they have not yet
>	(usually) been charged.  They are, under law, to be considered
>	as INNOCENT.  Remember innocent until proven guilty?  This does
>	not mean that a cop cannot exercise caution, but to approach any
>	given situation with life and death paranoia is absolutely 
>	unnacceptable behavior that is probably going to get somebody real
>	dead, and such a person may be innocent and will certainly not have
>	been proven guilty by any means.  Unless the suspect makes an overtly
>	dangerous gesture toward the PO or perhaps another person, there is
>	NO justification whatsoever for the use of deadly force against them.

	I'd say we're back to situational specifics here.  I agree in
principle, but in playing "police advocate" (tm) I think there's a
fuzzy line where that overt gesture has to be defined, and this depends
on the situation.  Is storming a house with a suspected murderer in it
grounds for unsnapped holsters, drawn guns, drawn and loaded guns?  Is
the sound of your back door being kicked open grounds to load the shotgun
and point it towards the bedroom door while you call 911?  If not, is it
when your bedroom door is kicked open?  Do you look for a gun and make sure
you could determine the make and model before firing, or do you look for an
outline that's pointed at you and fire if you see it?  As I think you can
see, that gun could be fake and you'd never know until it was too late, or
it could be real and you'd never know until it was too late.  In either
case somebody may wind up dead.  Mistakes will happen.  That the person
you shot (if this is the case) has not been found guilty of burgulary or
assault or whatever yet doesn't seem to be particularly relevant here.
A "crime in progress" I believe it is called, and the concensus tends to
be that the person committing this crime is de facto guilty.  Certainly
we must balance this with the idea that a murderer is only suspected of
murder until the jury finds him guilty, yet this doesn't mean we have
to regard a suspected murderer as unwilling to harm us any more than
it means we have to shoot him on sight because he might harm us.  What
it does mean is that he is suspected of showing a willingness to harm
us, and we should be wary, cautious, and prepared.  If he doesn't
make that overt move, all is fine.  To not prepare for it in this
instance is foolish, and "is probably going to get somebody real dead."

>	One may consider them armed and dangerous and may take APPROPRIATE
>	precautions, but the source of the claim of armed and dangerous
>	must be considered as well as the possibility that the person you are
>	approaching may not be the right target.  Mistaken identity occurs
>	quite often.  

	I disagree, as I see this as too binary in nature.  Note that I think
the sentiments are right, but when the possibility of not being prepared is
a very dead cop, doesn't it make sense to let this concern for life over-ride
the concern that the source may be lying?  I extend it both ways, though, and
figure the cops should keep my right to life in mind when storming my house
due to a bad tip or mistaken identity.  What is defined as appropriate should
be allowed to take into account a plausible worst-case scenario, and I see
your statement as disallowing this if the source hasn't been 100% reliable.
It's a nit, I admit, but with such possible ramifications I think it needs
to be noted.

>>I'm trying to balance the job the police do
>>with how I would like to handle the situation, and be handled, and I
>>find that prudence is the best thing for all concerned.  

>	Agreed, but you seem to contradict yourself from the paragraphs
>	immediately above.  Many cops do NOT exercise good prudent behavior.
>	They seem to have this Miami Vice "get in there and shoot the place
>	all to hell" attitude.  This is shit and if it were tried with me I
>	assure you that while I may not survive, I'd take as many of the lousy
>	bastards with me as I could manage.  Fuck them and their rotten and
>	unsound tactics.  They stink and it should be cleaned up in a very big
>	way.

	I agree 100% again, though my condolances if you don't survive.  If
it makes any difference, I'd do the same thing most likely, and I sure as hell
hope somebody prosecutes and gets the police to change their tactics and
the appropriate laws once my death has been caused by them, though the best
thing to have done would be to change the laws beforehand.  That many cops
do not exercise prudent behavior means they need to be off the force.  It
doesn't mean cops need to be disarmed any more than my being shot by an
idiot means you need to be disarmed.  This balancing of rights, allowed
behavior, and the like is hard, but I believe we have to assume competent
behavior until shown otherwise if we wish to retain our liberties.

>>	A cop who
>>has a gun drawn and perhaps aimed at me, but without a finger on
>>the trigger (I assume a competent cop here) frightens me less than
>>the idiot who waves a gun around at the range, and I can hardly
>>fault the officer if the charge he is arresting me on is murder
>>or armed robbery.  Can you?

>	Yes I most certainly can.  If I have made no menacing gestures toward
>	the rotten bastard, then what the fuck is he doing pointing his weapon 
>	AT me?  I might take his gun away from him and rip his trachea out of 
>	his neck just because he pissed me off so much.  If you oint a gun AT
>	me I will assume that you are gonna use it.  At that point all bets are
>	off and I will do what ever I have to to neutralize the threat, which 
>	probably means KILLING the fool in order to keep myself alive.  What a 
>	waste.  Intelligent behavior can make all this quite unnecessary.

	A fine scenario to dissect!  Let's assume the cop has just barged
into the area you are in.  If you were actually a suspect, it's hardly likely
you'd allow a cop to walk up to you, is it?  Now then, you are wanted for
suspicion of murder.  The cop therefore knows you are potentially a killer,
and if this is true would probably be armed and willing to use that weapon.
Isn't it prudent for him to come in weapon drawn then?  I admit, there are
many situations where this is stupid, but let's assume there aren't any
bystanders to endanger.  Why should he have to potentially risk his life
on being a faster draw than you?  If you raise your hands, you're safe.
I still assume a competent cop.  If you go to draw that gun in your pants,
you're shot.  It's a justified shooting, isn't it?  You assume that the
cop is intending to shoot you, if I read the above correctly.  This is most
certainly a problem that needs to be addressed, for I have never thought
of a cop as being intent on shooting me _unless_ I show myself as a threat
to lives.  You seem to.  How I reconcile this with normal citizens is on
a situational basis.  That idiot at the range waving the gun around I don't
think is trying to shoot me, so shooting him first doesn't seem like a
very valid thing to do.  The guy in the ski mask who kicks open my bedroom
door just might be, and if I see anything I consider intent to do harm to
myself or my loved ones he gets buckshot at center mass if I'm capable
of doing so.  The jury decides this one.

	The point is that preparing for a threat that never emerges need
not endanger anybody else, especially if we assume competence in the
use of the weapon and valid assessment of the situation.  Just as one
dead citizen because of a lack of weapon is too many, one dead cop because
I won't allow them to ready it is too many.  Sending soldiers into LA
without ammunition was foolish, too, in my opinion.  When you send
people into harm's way, let them defend themselves as necessary.  Do not,
ever, take their acceptance of the job as reason to remove that ability.

>>	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.  

>	They reacted improperly.  A hand on the handle and unsnapping the
>	holster would be fine, but actually drawing the weapon...  bogus.
>	I suupose they pointed the weapons at you?

	Not that I remember right now.  As a matter of fact, I should
amend this a bit.  I saw one pistol clearing its holster and I froze.
There were plenty of guards, including police and secret service.  The
nearest guard just stepped close to me and asked me if I had any metal
objects to s-l-o-w-l-y put them in the tray next to me.  I very slowly
did so.  Pistols were back in the holsters by this time, as I recall,
but hands were on butts and people were ready.  I mentioned the screw,
and a hand-held scanner was brought out.  A woman ran the scanner over
me, and frisked my ankle when it registered metal there.  Once she stood
and went back to her post everything returned to normal.  I did recieve
apologies from the guard while I re-claimed my belongings, mentioning
that he was sorry if he had scared me but that they were on alert for
possible terrorist activities.  That makes sense, to me.  Today, I'd
scream holy Ned for such actions, but after rolling over another
country like Iraq, isn't it reasonable for cops in an airport in
Washington D.C. to assume I'm a possible terrorist and be prepared
to stop me accordingly?

>> 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,
>				   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>	Wanna BET?

	It doesn't if the cops are competent.  If they're not, remove
and prosecute -- they deserve it.

>>but might save an officer if the suspect draws a weapon.  At this point,

>	In the case of cops bustin MY door down when I have done nothing
>	to merit such an act, I say FUCK the lousy cop, let him die for
>	being such a careless fool.  You wanna make dangerous assumptions,
>	FINE, but you'd better be damned well prepared to pay for them when
>	the shit hits the fan and your neat little plan of playing Miami
>	Vice goes down the shitter.

	Agreed, they had better be right.  Remember that when you shoot
a cop who was given the wrong address and has been told that the
renown international terrorist Mahmoud Ibn Purplehazi (one of Geoff
Miller of Sun Microsystems' net alias' to give credit where it is due)
is hiding out there.  Make sure your widow knows you died because you
were defending your home against people who weren't there to hurt you,
merely arrest you.  If they weren't identifiable as police, I can see
your justification.  If you did do an act that justifies this, how can
you not grant the police the right to defend against you when it is
so plain that you're willing to shoot what barges through your door?
Maybe I'm misreading, or maybe you're not expressing your thoughts
in an accurrate manner (something I am quite guilty of on occassion),
but this seems to be a balancing of individual rights between you and
the police officers, and I don't see much of a balance here.

>>	Could you elaborate on this?  I assume a clear and present
>>danger is already given if the occupants are known to be killers, or
>>to have exchanged fire with police forces.  In such an instance, I
>>cannot fault an officer who enters with weapon ready.  I can fault the
>>officer if he just starts shooting people without regard to the threat
>>they might pose (unarmed, asleep, whatever), but who can fault a person
>>for being ready for a situation that might not ever happen?
>>
>	There's a BIG difference between being PROPERLY prepared and going
>	nuts.  And where do you get this "are known to be" shit?  Usually
>	NOTHING is known for certain.   Many assumptions are made, and some
>	are reasonable but many are most certainly NOT.  And it is usually
>	these unacceptable assumptions and the actions that the cops take
>	based on them that get people killed "by accident".

	Of course.  The "known to be" should be changed to "suspected of
being" for the sake of clarity, but for the purposes of being prepared to
meet a threat it makes very little difference.  It should be prepared for
either way.  The "unacceptable assumptions" you reference are a sticking
point, since opinions will vary.  Who has their life endangered because of
this, and to what degree, is what needs to be ironed out.

>>>Maybe.  But is this moot. <reference: Vietnam and person running
towards me in black pajamas>
>>>Is a police officer on the beat in Hometown, USA justified in shooting
>>>somebody running towards him without even identifing himself first.
>>>(Good thing police don't hang out near jogging trails!!!)
>>
>>	Of course not, but is the officer justified in clearing his
>>sidearm from the holster "just in case?"  

>	If the person is not in visible possession of a device that can be
>	readily used as a weapon, then they most certainly are NOT.  

	<sigh!>  I screwed up again.  My fault for not making this more
clear in the context I was thinking of.  Some day I've got to start
saving posts and waiting a day, then reviewing and posting a follow-up.
What I was thinking here is the "intuition based on training and experience"
idea I've mentioned before.  A (competent) officer who feels he is justified
in drawing his weapon "just in case" probably has a damn good indication
that there's going to be reason for it.  Of course, that decision should be
subject to review, but I don't think "visible posession of a ... weapon"
need be reason enough.  I distinctly remember knowing a former employer was
a serious bad-ass, but I didn't know why, and I still cannot think of what
told me this.  A few weeks later I found he was a former US Navy SEAL.  I
was right, but had no justification.  Were he jogging towards me, need I see
a weapon before being justified in taking some sort of action (which could
include moving out of the way, unsecuring sidearm, hand on nightstick, or
a host of other things that should be explained before a board)?  That
none of the actions I mentioned will likely protect you against a SEAL is
not important.  What is important is how rigidly we restrict others, cops
or citizens, from preparing to defend themselves.

>>I am assumming that the
>>officer has some feeling that this jogger is really dangerous and
>>can justify drawing the weapon.  Most of the time the jogger doesn't
>>merit a second look, but if he does, why is it wrong to draw a weapon
>>and be prepared?  It doesn't mean he has to use it if he is wrong.

>	Are you NUTS?  What if the jogger looks like a homeless person?
>	We all know how dangerous those razor toting loonies are, right?
>	Just happens to be a Columbia computer science professor.  And
>	what if by some wild chance the drawn gun scares the shit out of
>	the jogger so badly that he makes some sort of wild gesture?
>	Cops shoots his miserable ass and there you are; innocent man is
>	dead because the cop is a lousy coward that cannot control his
>	fear or his bladder.  WONDERFUL.  How would you feel if this were
>	one of your parents? a sister of brother of a child?  You must be
>	out of your fucking mind, please pardon me.  With an attitude like
>	that, an attitude of unbounded paranoia and fear, how could you
>	ever expect anyone to trust a cop?  You might see people shooting them
>	on sight as a precautionary preemptive measure.  You've got to be
>	kidding.

	I'm not kidding, and I take no comfort in your claiming I've an
attitude of unbounded paranoia and dear while your statements seem to
indicate you shoot anything coming in your house you can't immediately
identify and take all cops to be cowards and incompetents.  You're
pardoned, of course -- no harm done, no harm intended.  I don't see
shooting anybody as an precautionary preemptive measure.  I see being
prepared to do so as one.  There's a slight difference you seem to be
glancing over.  You know, two extremes, no middle ground.

>>>> 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.
>	
>	Wrong-O Dan.  VERY wrong-O.

	My apologies again, as "percieved intent" needs to be inserted
in here.  Soldiers don't shoot surrendering enemy if they can help it,
and police shouldn't shoot armed people.  The percieved intent of the
armed person is what guides all of this.  Note that the same intent
is what you must percieve before you shoot that intruder in your home.
Again, my apologies for not making this more clear.

>>	Crime is on the increase, and violent crime is much higher
>>than it was just ten years ago.  

>	That's is no justification for cops to ignore common sense or the
>	rights of the people, noe whatsoever, and I don't give a shit HOW
>	bad the crime is.

	I agree, but I don't distinguish between cops and the people when
it comes to protecting rights.  This has gotten me in serious hot water,
so to speak, but it's a principle I feel quite strongly in.

>>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

>	Jeez... I hope you are not serious, otherwise I'd have to suggest
>	therapy.  Serious therapy.

	I made this statement while thinking of an area in which I could
have conceivably been a major public threat unless neutralized quickly
if that was necessary.  Since it seems somewhat out of context, I don't
have much but a rather poor short-term memory to go on here, but this is
what I think I was referring to.  I could look up the original post, but
suffice to say this is a situational thing again, and while I freely
admit I could have been way overboard here I also think that the level
of force brought to readiness is not always the level of force you are
required to use, and that the worst-case scenario (within some reason)
needs to be evaluated and appropriate measures taken given this
possibility.  At the airport, I was a probable threat.  At a concert
I was frisked at, the potential for death was much higher.  That I
was not faced with drawn weapons means only that the police didn't
see drawing them as necessary, not that it wouldn't have been a
good move.  A cop might have died had I actually had a gun and wanted
to use it.  So might many others had he not acted and proved that I
was not what he thought.  Those drawn weapons don't equate to my
death.  Let's balance my right to carry a rifle scope with the
right to life those concert-goers had should I have been the psyco
the officer deemed it prudent to assume I might have been.

>>If I am carrying one in a crowd that happens
>>to be in Chicago in 1967 during the Democratic National Convention,
>>isn't it reasonable for the officer to think me a threat?
>	
>	To consider you carefully and perhaps even to order you to out the 
>	bat down, yes.  To draw and/or fire, NO; not if you aren't making
>	threatening gestures toward the officer.

	Baseball bat here (if it was what I referenced above, my apologies
because I seem to have went overboard.  I won't expect a cop with a baton
to take on someboy with a baseball bat, but drawing a gun does seem out of
line unless other factors and perceptions are at work here), so naturally
I agree with you.  Level of threat percieved should correllate with the
level of force you use.

>       First you say incredibly
>	nosensical things and then you say quite reasonable things
>	indicating intellingence in abundance and swap back and forth a few
>	times like that.  I'm still not sure you have it down quite right.
>	No flame, really... I just can;t quite figger you POV.

	You think *you* have a problem figuring me out?!!?  I'm having a
helluva time trying to do this balancing act, and believe me it's taken
a lot of soul-searching to try and balance my liberties with the
liberties every other citizen should enjoy.  That I equate cops as
citizens first and foremost only makes it harder.  If you have any
ideas, by all means let me know them.  I'm learning, and modifying
my beliefs as I go along.  I like to think I'm mostly consistent, but
I freely admit I've been unclear in many parts and I only hope that
I've done a better job as these are pointed out.  So much of this is
situational that it makes things even harder to sort out, but the
bottom line is this: How can I let my rights infringe on the rights of
Tony by virtue of the job I've asked him to do?

<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. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns