Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:22:58 EST
 <1992Sep1.084241.3837@desire.wright.edu> <5zjnz_n.adamsr@netcom.com>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <5zjnz_n.adamsr@netcom.com>, adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
> Thus spake demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man): 
> 
>>In article <tzhn3jg.adamsr@netcom.com>, adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>>> 
>>> JIM> If I'm holding a gun on somebody and they come at me I'll 
>>                                	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>				
>>> JIM> shoot.  Probably 15 times before stopping for 1.2 seconds 
>>> JIM> to reload.  I don't care if they're armed or not.
>>>                  ^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^
>>>  
>>
>>	Notice the qualification.  "If they come at me"
>>
>>	Clear yet?
>>
> 	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?

> 	That's clear.

	Yes, it is.

> 	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.

> 	How Butch of you!

	Please, some of us don't live by labels.

>>> ME> Anyone who would shoot down an unarmed 100 lb mentally ill woman
>>> ME> (which you just said you would do) needs therapy, not firearms!
>>> 
>>> 	NOW does the statement make sense?
>>> 
>>
>>	Nope.  You take his statement about being attacked by someone and then
>>say "gosh, he's going to shoot old ladies!".
>>
>>	I don't care *who* is doing the attacking, 100lb women or little green
>>men, if you are attacked you have the right to defend yourself.
>>
> 	Really?

	Yep.  Look it up.

> 	Somehow, I just don't think you're in touch with reality.

	Maybe not on your planet, which isn't near Earth from the look of
things.

> 	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.

> 	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 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? :)

>>> 	How about handling the situation more intelligently in the first
>>> place? The woman was isolated in the house. There were NO potential victims
>>> accessible to her. 
>>
>>	The cop told her to freeze.  She attacked him.  It was remarkable that
>>only four shots were fired.
>>
> 	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!

>>>She was known to be mentally unstable and armed with a
>>> machete. 
>>
>>	"She was know to be mentally unstable".  You have proof that the police
>>knew both who she was and what her mental state was at the time of the
>>incident?
> 
> 	It's in the police report that was publicized. They knew who she
> was, and they knew she was mentally ill. . Given these two FACTS specific
> knowledge of her mental state at the instant could have been reasonably
> infered.
> 
>>	Even then, an armed lunatic is not exactly the kind of person who
>>listens to reason.
>>
> 	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?

>>> Was there any NEED to rush in instead of either attempting
>>> negotiations or at least using tear gas? 
>>
>>	Yes.  There were potential hostages.
>>
> 	Who? The family had been evacuated and there was no one in the house
> until the police entered.
> 
> 	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.

> 	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 was the risk of damaging the
>>> Chancelor's house with gas fumes more important than attempting to subdue an
>>> emotionally unstable woman without killing her?
>>
>>	Nope, the need to keep innocent people alive overrode her right to be
>>armed, crazy, and attack people.
>>
> 	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 :).

>>> 	In most situations involving a "cornered" suspect, the cops are
>>> willing to take the time to "talk" them out. Why the rush to charge in this
>>> time? Even more important, why is a man who was fired from one force for
>>> repeated use of excessive force working for another one rather than
>>> permanently barred from law enforcement employment?
>>
>>	Why did she attack them?  Why should then not defend themselves?
>>
> 	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.

> 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.

	Man, it's like Saddam and Kuwait all over again.

Brett
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.college,talk.politics.misc