From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:46:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man): 

>In article <5zjnz_n.adamsr@netcom.com>, adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>> Thus spake demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man): 
>>>
>> 	Sure. If anyone gets in your way, shoot the sucker!
>
>	I guess it says it all: someone attacking yo is merely "in your way".
>
>	Let's see, that would make murder "inconvenient" and rape "unpleasant",
>eh?
>
	You are the one willing to shoot the unarmed, not me. If you find
killing people "inconvenient" they you are entitled to your rather bizarre
definition.
>
>> 	Never mind that the person might be unarmed - if she is silly enough
>> to "come at you" while you have that trusty steel phallus in your hand
>> "proving" how macho you are, she deserves to die, right?
>
>	"Never mind if the person is unarmed?"  But that is the point.  Even
>weaponless people kill.
>
	Not very often compared to those with guns. An unarmed 100 lb woman
may _hurt_ you, but she is rather unlikely to kill you - or, for that
matter, to WANT to kill you. If she was homicidal she would probably own a
gun!

>> 	How Butch of you!
>
>	Please, some of us don't live by labels.
>
	Funny - you enjoy applying them to others so much that I assumed you
applied them to yourself as well. I retract my statement. You AREN'T butch
or macho. Better?

>> 	Try explaining to a jury that you just shot an unarmed woman 15
>> times because she "came at you" and watch how quickly you end up spending a
>> rather extended time with men who don't NEED to wiggle their metal phallus
>> to prove that they're macho. Let me know when it happens and I'll be sure to
>> send you a gift to "ease" your transition to your new life style - a family
>> sized jar of vasoline would seem appropriate.
>
>	:).  Verdict: not guilty.  Peple who fear they are in immenent danger
>get to protect themselves, whether you or the criminals like it.  Sorry if that
>makes you all frowny faced.
>
	Try reading the law before you cite it. Unless you can PROVE that
you were in danger from that unarmed woman - or anyone else for that matter
- self defense is NOT a defense for homicide. Since you don't appear willing
to examine the matter from a common sense perspective, perhaps the following
quotation from a text on Criminology will clarify the matter (if not, I'll
be glad to provide the SC decisions as well):

	"The law, however, has set limits as to what is reasonable and
necessary self-defense. First, defendants must have a reasonable belief that
they are in danger of death or great harm and that it is necessary for them
to use force to prevent harm to themselves. For example, if Mary threatens
to kill Jan but it is obvious  that Mary is unarmed, Jan is not justified in
pulling her gun and shooting Mary. . . 
	Second, the amount of force used must be no greater than that
necessary to prevent personal harm. For instance, if Steve punches Ben, Ben
could no justifiably hit Steve with an iron rod. Ben could, however, punch
Steve back if he believed Steve was going to continue punching.
	. . . Using force to defend one's property from trespass or theft is
allowable if the force is reasonable. This means that the case of force
should be a last resort after requests to stop interfering with the property
have failed or after legal action has failed. Also, the use of deadly force
is not considered reasonable when only protection of property is concerned.
This is based on the social policy that human life is more important than
property."
		Siegel, L. (1986). _Criminology_. St. Paul: West Pub. (44-45).

	In other words, if you shoot someone, you better be able to PROVE
that there were legitimate grounds to believe your life was in danger - not
just that you feared being hurt.

>> 	The use of a firearm is justified (legally) ONLY when the individual
>> has reasonable grounds to believe their life is in danger - and being
>> attacked by an unarmed 100 lb woman  (unless you can prove that she is an
>> expert in unarmed combat) very definately DOESN'T provide such grounds!
>
>	Gosh, too bad we're NOT talking about unarmed 100lb grandmothers, eh?
>
	But when you state that you are justified in shooting ANYONE who
attacks you armed or not, you ARE talking about 100 lb grandmothers, and
children, and paraplegics, and . . .

>	But strawmen aside, the sex of a person, the weight of a person, the
>mental condition of a person, do not need to be asertained beforehand.  All
>that matters is that the victim feels that they are in danger.
>	If I'm attacked, I'm in danger.  Period.  Whether it's by men with
>steel phalluses or women with iron ciltorises.  (Clitori? :)
>
	As I said, let me know when you act on that belief and I'll send you
a gift for your new home!

	Even Bernard Goetz was eventually convicted, and he was attacked by
FOUR hoods he had REASON to fear, not by one individual who is not armed!

>> 	I agree. For a gun nut to stop at only four shots must be like
>> coitus interruptus!
>
>	For a deranged *violence prone* lunatic to be stopped before killing is
>like impotence!
>
	And for a mentally ill woman to be subdued and disarmed without
killing her is an act of humanity. I know the concept is difficult, but work
on it and it will com to you!

>> 	Which is a pretty good reason for not storming the house rather than
>> taking a more negotiatory tack. BTW, don't try to tell us how the mind of a
>> mentally ill individual will respond - you don't have the knowledge to back
>> your statement - if you did you wouldn't have used the term lunatic!
>
>	Given the extensive data on negotiating with lunatics on hand at the
>time, I'm sure the officer should have told the woman to please stop attacking
>while he thumbed through his manuals, eh?
>
	No, given the extensive data on negotiating with the mentally ill,
he should have stayed out of the building until qualified professionals
(i.e., a negotiation team or a SWAT team) could affect an arrest.

>> 	If there WERE potential hostages, I might agree with them storming
>> the place, but the had been removed.  Try reading the facts of the case
>> before arguing about it.
>
>	O, such a wound!  I feel  I can't continue, *sob*.
>
>	Don't be pathetic.  I have read reports.  The initial ones implied that
>the people were still in the house.
>
	But the police had access to the ACTUAL information, that the house
was empty except for her AND that she was armed with a machete.

	It doesn't really matter WHAT the initial reports you read contained
- the police didn't base their behavior on those reports, but on the FACTS.

>> 	The ONLY justification for not trying negotiation or non-lethal
>> methods was to protect the Chancellor's house against property damage. Given
>> that the police knew she was armed and could therefore accurately estimate
>> the likelihood that she would be killed by a cop, the only reasonable
>> conclusion which that leads to is that the property was more important that
>> a human life!
>
>	The only reasonable conlusion is that when being attacked by machete
>wielding lunatics, the police will shoot.
>	Good thing, too.  Or there might have been two or three dead instead.
>
	Or, they might have followed rational procedures and NO ONE would be
dead.

	Of course, since it was just a "lunatic" rather than a human being
who was killed, it doesn't matter, right? 

	Mental disorders are as much handicaps as blindness or paralysis -
and as little subject to the victim's control. Does your bigotry extend to
killing the blind and deaf, or do you limit it to those who suffer from
emotional disorders?

	Incidently, an irrational fear of the mentally ill - such as you
display - MAY indicate that the REAL fear is of personal insanity. Have you
consulted a therapist? Or, better yet, accosted a police officer, lately?

>> 	Who were these mythical "innocent people?" There was no one there but
>> her until the cops stormed the place!
>
>	The police are innocent, or do you believe (like the Red Army Faction)
>that simply wearing a unifiorm makes you a valid target for "execution"?  Or
>that she should have been left alone inside to destroy the house?
>	It is pretty obvious that she went inside with the intent to kill.  A
>machete isn't exactly a protest banner.
>	And if you "read the reports" you'll see that here associates clearly
>stated that she believed and said many times that violence was an acceptable
>method.  You live by the sword, you die by the sword (or machete :).
>
	So what? All that means is that the police should have exercized
caution in their dealings with her. She was confined to the dwelling. She
was alone. There was no reason (other than to protect property) to storm her
and risk her life OR the lives of the officers!

	The police are _presumed_ to be both sane and professionals. For
that reason, it is not unreasonable to assume that they are better able to
deal with this type of situation w/o the use of deadly force than is the
common person. Yet MANY of the psychiatric aides I've worked with would have
been able to easily disarm the woman with - at worst - only MINOR injury to
her.

	Berkeley PD, btw, is generally acknowledged to have one of the best
trained SWAT teams in the US. Why weren't THEY given control of the
situation rather than permitting a violence prone Oakland cop to enter the
building? Fear that the woman would damage some of the chancellor's precious
property before they got there?

>> 	She attacked them because she was mentally disturbed, because she
>> was terrified, and because she didn't (in her state) realize that
>> alternatives existed.
>
>	Oh well.  That's exactly why she died, too.  It's not the role of
>police to be therapists to people who can't handle reality.
>	What about here friend?  If she was so deranged, they should have goten
>her into therapy.
>
	No, it ISN'T the role of the police to be therapists. Neither is it
their role to be executioners. A cop - or anyone else - who would shoot a
mentally ill individual when ANY reasonable alternative existed (as was the
case here) is to obscene to be considered human.

	As far as "getting her into therapy," try remembering what state you
are talking about. Reagan closed down most of the mental hospitals while he
was Governor as a tax saving measure, and Wilson has cut funding for mental
health even more. There WASN'T any way to "get her into therapy" short of
her arrest. Of course, since the therapy she would have received had they
not executed her would have cost the taxpayers money, I have no doubt that
you feel that it makes better sense, economically, for her to be dead.

>> More important is the question of why they attacked
>> her, rather than trying for a non-lethal resolution to the situation.
>
>	Because they were attacked.
>
	Sure. She came charging out of the house where she was confined and
attacked them, right?

	You must have cheered when the cops beat the hell out of Rodney
King, too!

>	Man, it's like Saddam and Kuwait all over again.
>
	Yup. A force of highly armed militaristic individuals stormed into a
small confined area and shot down all opposition without negotiation.

	Sounds about right to me.

	I'm done. I've made my point. Have fun getting in the last word, it
will help you rebuild the macho illusion you feel such a strong need to
project.

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\  Reliable and affordable public access to 
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \  telecommunications services is the 
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  first step toward a global community.
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  Send Email for files on GEnie and Netcom.