HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:37:06 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <yvjndkn.adamsr@netcom.com>, adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
> 	But Jim, your post makes it clear that you ARE the type of nutcase
> who should never be permitted to own a firearm!
> 
> 	I don't need to borrow a gun to see what it will do - I grew up on
> the streets and saw it first hand both there and as a medic in Vietnam.
> 
> 	You are perfectly correct in saying it would be stupid to permit
> someone to take your gun and shoot you with it - which is an excellent
> reason NOT to have a gun in the first place. You say you have a gun because

So what do you do if attacked by a person armed with a machete, 
a knife, or three attackers who are strong and vicious, but unarmed?
A gun is essential in those circumstances.

> someone was coming in your window one morning. Sounds to me like you are
> still alive, and since you didn't have a gun at the time, that person is as
> well.  I wonder if EITHER of you would be if you HAD possessed a gun at the
> time?

I know people who had the misfortune to be unarmed when unarmed attackers
came in.  The results were very unpleasant.  But I'm sure that a few
rapes, a few beatings, don't bother you much.

> 	Some people are gun control nuts. I'm more of a "control gun nuts"
> advocate. People like yourself whose first response to any potential problem
> is to grab for a gun are a LOT more dangerous than any burglar will ever be.

I know a lot of victims that would disagree.

>     rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        

It is your attitude that is the reason that there is NO acceptable
gun registration scheme.  It's clear that the long term goal of
liberals like you is nothing short of complete disarmament of 
decent people, so that the savages can do as they wish.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: How to Profit from Death
Date: 23 Aug 92 17:38:29 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: QueerNet

In article <1992Aug22.004600.8461@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
>In the Merc yesterday there was an article (back page of sec 1)
>about the latest financial speculation: buying life insurance
>policies from people with AIDS.
>
>Remember all the stink about using fetal tissue for research?
>(or selling bodily organs?) This is even worse, since the only
>person who profits is the investor. (the goal of research is to
>make some medical progress)

Before you dump on this idea, realize that it was suggested by PWAs and
fought for by ACT UP; people *wanted* access to their insurance funds
while they were useful to them.  Some companies modified their policies
to allow this; in the case of other companies, outside agents are used.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4888 ca.politics:7241 talk.politics.misc:42782
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 30 Aug 92 05:13:05 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <11973@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>She had a machete.  That's adequate.  Policemen are badly injured 

And he had a PK-24. That's a metal baton with a side handle, designed
to be used for blocking blows, among other things. You grip the side
handle in your fist and the entire length of your arm is protected
by the metal baton. Blocking a machete with that ought to be a piece
of cake.

I believe he was operating alone and was surprised by her. Wouldn't
it have been prudent to operate in pairs, two cops watching each
other's backs so they don't have to immediately use deadly force?

-- 
My opinions are my own.
A right delayed is a right denied.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:16:46 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <92244.30816.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
> In <1992Aug29.135549.21386@tc.cornell.edu>, Melinda Shore writes:
# ##Claytoon, the Great Net Libertarian, believes that people
# ##only deserve their constitutional rights if they're
# ##popular.  He'd really prefer that he gets to be arbiter,
# ##but failing that he'd like to put everyone's rights up for
# ##popular vote.
# 
# Melinda, you call him a "Libertarian," and then you state that he doesn't
# support full constitutional rights.  That's a contradiction.  If he really
# does selectively apply the Bill of Rights, then he's not a libertarian (with
# either a large L or a small L).  Sorry to nitpick, but I don't want
# to see libertarianism smeared like that.
# 
# Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com

All she does is smear.  Her upset is that I don't believe that
the government should be interfering with private actions by
consenting adults -- and that includes employment and housing.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:39:26 GMT

In article <p9arrj8@fido.asd.sgi.com>, 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?

Fortunately not.  How large a knife and what actions (and by how many)
was taken?  Is it comparable with dealing with an unknown in adverse
circunmstances?  Are you sure?

> You are rationalizing excessive force.

On the contrary.  I'm attempting to figure out a sensible course of
action from the point of view of the officer on the spot.  *You*,
hwover, are trying to decide what ought to have been done with
(functionally) unlimited time and a much wider set of options derived
from that time.

	--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: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: How to Profit from Death
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:56:42 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug27.192153.24534@oracle.us.oracle.com>, rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #I completely agree with you about the importance of clean needle
# #exchange.  (Hell, let's just make it laissez-faire -- no need for
# #exchange).  But I think you are making a serious mistake when you
# #assume that opposition to it is that "drug users deserve to die..."
# #The problem is that there is a perception that allowing needle
# #exchange will be seen as the government approving of drug use.
# 
# I know of people whom have been doing this privately since @ 1986 ...
# as well as teaching how to use bleach to sanitize needles ...
# 
# Where do you think The Bleachman ( a common logo on bus stops a few
# years ago here in San Francisco ) came from ?	(-:

I am aware of such activities, and that jury nullification has
played a major role in knocking down one of the prosecutions.
More power to jury nullification!

# I guess it must have been those Thousand Points Of Light, hard at work
# while the Government diddles itself in Washingtoon ...
# 
# -- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411

You want something done right?  Do it yourself.  Waiting for the
government to do anything right is a lost cause.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Political Correctness (was Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective))
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 18:31:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.153423.9418@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.212852.26630@amhux2.amherst.edu> twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>>What is "political correctness?"
>
>See the sentence below...
>
>>>Look at it.

I assume that you meant not this sentence, but the paragraph that
follows.

>>>I state a fact that Dauber doesn't like.  He responded
>>>with a personal attack.  I said something that attacks his view of the
>>>world, therefore I am evil.

This doesn't answer my question.  What is "political correctness?"
You speak of it as if it constitutes a coherent philosophy of life, in
some abstract sense.  What do you define generally as "political
correctness?"

>>Did you not invoke personal attacks by saying that the only purpose of
>>a woman is to serve a man sexually?
>
>No.  Please work on your reading comprehension.  I did not say that.
>Someone asked what males thought about lesbians.  I told him what most
>males thought.

And tossed in for free, we got such value-laden speech that you leave
yourself without a chance in hell of masquerading your little jack-off
fantasies about "ugly lesbians" and "pretty lesbians" as anything
resembling objectivity or fact.

>>Actually, don't tell me where you get off.  I don't think I want to
>>know, as long as you don't do it on my computer screen any more.
>
>Well, Tim, I certainly prefer what I get off on to what you get off on.

What's that?  Women?  Men?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4929 ca.politics:7282
From: joan@koala.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 2 Sep 1992 05:24:10 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: koala.berkeley.edu

In article <12079@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

[most of post deleted]

]>As long as liberals consider what happened to Denovo "cold-blooded
]>murder" as they screeched in the streets of Berkeley, I will continue
]>to defend it.  I refuse to make a cop put himself in risk of death
]>or permanent disablement just so that liberals can make political
]>statements with machetes in someone else's home.

	She called herself an anarchist, as do many of the people
who periodically break windows, set fires, etc. in Berkeley.

Joan V
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:26:18 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <1992Sep2.061050.4044@queernet.org>, rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
> In article <1992Sep1.182216.11327@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep1.150708.22648@queernet.org>, rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
> >> I feel far safer in my neighborhood when the "crazies and drug dealers"
> >> are on the streets than when the cops are...
> >
> >You must live in a much wilder neighborhood than I do.
> 
> I live in the Haight... I assume you live somewhere near San Remote?

As it happens, your assumption is in error.  I live near Berkeley.

	--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
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 16:56:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake jimh@pacdata.uucp (Jim Harkins): 

>I specifically stated that I would shoot anyone who came at me when I was
>holding a gun on them.  If I'm holding a gun on them then I'm worried for
>my life.  Do you really expect me to stand there like an idiot and let
>a lunatic take my gun away so they can (possibly) shoot me with it?  Homey
>don't play that game.  Because holding a gun on someone isn't a game.
>
>You want a dose of reality?  Go borrow someones gun.  Go buy a tomato.  Go
>out to the range and shoot said tomato.  Think of a person instead of the
>tomato.  This should sober you up real fast.  Guns are not toys.  If I'm
>holding a gun on you we aren't playing Dirty Harry in the movies.  If someone
>is shot they won't be getting up.  I don't intend to be the one to get shot.
>I own a gun because I woke up one morning with a leg coming in through my
>bedroom window.  I was not happy waiting 15 days for my gun.  If you are too
>chicken to protect your own life, fine.  Don't expect me to let some nutcase
>take mine away from me.
>
	But Jim, your post makes it clear that you ARE the type of nutcase
who should never be permitted to own a firearm!

	I don't need to borrow a gun to see what it will do - I grew up on
the streets and saw it first hand both there and as a medic in Vietnam.

	You are perfectly correct in saying it would be stupid to permit
someone to take your gun and shoot you with it - which is an excellent
reason NOT to have a gun in the first place. You say you have a gun because
someone was coming in your window one morning. Sounds to me like you are
still alive, and since you didn't have a gun at the time, that person is as
well.  I wonder if EITHER of you would be if you HAD possessed a gun at the
time?

	Some people are gun control nuts. I'm more of a "control gun nuts"
advocate. People like yourself whose first response to any potential problem
is to grab for a gun are a LOT more dangerous than any burglar will ever be.

	I have no doubt that you would have shot that woman without
hesitation, exactly as Chew did.  I also have no doubt that a more rational,
less violent solution may have resulted in the woman receiving therapy
instead of a funeral.

	I'm sure you would prefer her to have the funeral - not all of us
agree with that perspective.

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan) 
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.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 23:10:41 GMT

In article <!3hnn+-.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>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.

If he fell into the bathtub, he "trapped" himself.

>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.

Sure we can.  Moreover, we should.

The "burst in and take them" approach is "necessary" only when the
suspect can do something important.  I realize that the drug warriors
think that destroying evidence is a big issue, but what's the
principle in this case?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:32:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.180451.5349@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:

>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?

However, this is what we pay police for.  They should be trained to do
this.  When he shot her, even if it was an accident, it was his fault
and proceedings should be brought up to see if he is an appropriate officer.

>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. 


However, the answer should not be "shoot to kill."  Again, police should be
trained to do otherwise.  If they do not, they should be investigated and
if found to have used unnecessary force leading to death, should be tried for
murder.

>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.


I will not accept that the cop was afraid and therefore he had the right
to shoot and kill a woman who was armed with a machete.  Perhaps they
are not receiving proper training.  However, and increase in the level
of violence in the nation does not warrant the police killing people
unnecessarily.  Their job is to subdue.  Their job is not to kill.  There
is no way you can defend this officer.


FWA
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4892 ca.politics:7249 talk.politics.misc:42899
From: galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 31 Aug 92 06:12:19 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

> In article <11973@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes
> >She had a machete.  That's adequate.  Policemen are badly injured 
> 
> And he had a PK-24. That's a metal baton with a side handle, designed
> to be used for blocking blows, among other things. You grip the side
> handle in your fist and the entire length of your arm is protected
> by the metal baton. Blocking a machete with that ought to be a piece
> of cake.
> 
> I believe he was operating alone and was surprised by her. Wouldn't
> it have been prudent to operate in pairs, two cops watching each
> other's backs so they don't have to immediately use deadly force?
> 

A couple of things:

1)Most police officers are trained that if someone comes at them with an 
   edged weapon, i.e., a machete, that that person means to do them in. 
   That entitles the officer to use whatever means he/she feels is needed
   to protect their own life. At the moment somebody is lunging at you
   with a weapon, you don't have much time to decide whether the person
   is criminally-minded or mentall disturbed -- as so long as they're 
   wielding a machete in your direction, it doesn't much matter, anyway.

2) This is my own speculation. The officer who fired the shots was a 
   K-9 officer. Was she lunging with the machete at the guy's dog? If
   so, that alone could've been enough to lead him to punch her ticket.

--
Gregory Alan Gross      Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished.
San Diego Union-Tribune         (619) 293-1270 (voice)
P.O. Box 191                    (619) 293-2333 (fax)
San Diego, CA 92112-4106        galan@netlink.cts.com (Internet)
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: "Ecofascists" In Action
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:48:47 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <92238.47366.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
|> In <1992Aug25.093236@wsl.dec.com>, George Neville-Neil writes:
|> 
|> >Yes, let's consider the timber industry.  Up until they were bought out by prof
|> >greedy Wall Streeters in the 1980s looking for the quick buck, quite a few of
|> >these companies did intelligent forest management.  Now that they are not longe
|> >un locally they are clear cutting.  It is in their interest in the long run to
|> >"plant *two* trees for every one they cut down" but without the long view in
|> >management they are killing their children's future.  The profit motive
|> >does not always work.
|> 
|> George, are you prepared to condemn the people who are using the "profit
|> motive" to find a cure for AIDS?  Or to people who are using the "profit
|> motive" to find a environmentally-friendly substitute for CFCs?  Or how about
|> to people who use the "profit motive" to develop a magazine which exposes
|> conservative Republican lies and scandals where they exist?
|> 

Read what I wrote.  I said:

The profit motive does not always work.

I was pointing out a danger.


-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
Newsgroups: ba.politics