From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 3
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 07:39:56 GMT

<sigh!>  Here we go again!  Hit "n" now if you don't want to read
hundreds of lines on this subject.

In <1a-nywj@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>>	If you can prove this assertation, the courts lie open to
>>your pleas for justice.  If you cannot, is your assertation any better
>>than mine, where I assert that the police stormed in with the intent
>>of only re-arranging the living room furniture?  Are the roving band of
>>interior decorators I describe a threat to anybody?

>If you assert they stormed the house in the middle of the night with automatic 
>weapons drawn and safetys off in order to rearrange the furniture, you're
>a bigger idiot than I thought.  From my experience with cops, I bet
>I could write a personality profile of Tony that would fit to a Tee 
>without ever having seen the man.  

	From my experiences with cops, they wouldn't have done the
actions these police we're referring to did.   That you can write a
personality profile of Tony in no way changes the idea that neither
of us should pronounce him guilty until a jury finds it to be so.  In
addition, look at the "and safety's off" part of what you wrote.  I
kept my M16's safety on but with my thumb against it, so by the time
I got my finger inside the trigger guard the safety was off.  On my
Remington Model 48, the safety has been modified a bit.  It is on
until I go to shoot.  The new safety arrangement has my finger inside
the trigger guard also disconnecting the safety.  While I don't know
if Tony had these "benefits" I use, neither of us can prove that the
safety on Tony's gun was indeed off at the time of the shooting, or
even if it was functioning.  How's about letting Tony walk when we
cannot prove he is guilty based on the evidence?

>>	I note that the "gestapo-style" raids you mention are
>>used by hostage-rescue teams.  

>Remind us again whose life was being saved in the raid?  I seemed to have
>missed that part.  Saving an inocent life that is in extreme danger is 
>the only legitimate use of such tactics, after all.  Hell, that used
>to even be TAUGHT to the cops.  

	Indeed.  That the people holding the hostages were most likely
not tried and pronounced guilty prior to the raid seems to have been
overlooked.  It's just too damn bad if a suspect dies, unless we think
he's holding hostages and is really a bad guy (tm), isn't it?  God
forbid a cop should go through a trial if he kills a murderer's wife and
not his accomplice, which can only be determined in a trial after the raid.

>>>Bullshit, Rick.  His MP5 did nothing.  Tony loaded the weapon.  Tony
>>>entered that room with the safety off and his finger on the trigger.
>>>Tony pointed the weapon at the victim and Tony pulled the trigger.

>>	Again, can you prove this?  If so, end this thread by taking
>>it to court.  If not, doesn't Tony deserve a jury to make this decision?

>Make a reasonable case that it's false.  You can't, of course.

	I can't speak for Tony's MP5, as I've never even
field-stripped one, but it seems that the declaration that Tony
"entered the room with safety off, finger on the trigger, pointed,
and pulled the trigger" is too rife with assumptions to not allow
even one of them to discount the idea.  I've had guns fire with the
safety on, I've had a *single action revolver* fire multiple shots
with one trigger pull, and I've had guns discharge well after I pulled
the trigger and nothing happened.  I also had a semi-auto shotgun
suddenly go full-auto on me.  A shot to the neck seems to be a lucky
shot (or unlucky), and this lends some weight to the idea that he
may have not purposefully discharges the weapon.  There aren't enough
facts known (angle of bullet entry, position of both Tony and the
women he shot, etc...) to say for sure if the claim is true beyond
a reasonable doubt.

>>	That MP5 is a machine, and subject to failure or malfunction.
>>HCI card?  Yeah, I need something to light the grill with tomorrow
>>afternoon.  If your car tire has a blow-out at 65mph and you hit
>>another car trying to regain control, by your logic it's 100% your
>>intentional action because that tire is an inanimate object and
>>functioned as designed.  

>You'd be surprised at how much you're considered responsible in this 
>situation. It is called failure to maintain control of your vehicle
>and yes, if it happened to you or I, we would be charged and tried.
>That really was a perfect analogy but not in the manner you had
>hoped.

	It is unlikely you would be charged, and very unlikely you
could be convicted, of intentional murder in this case, which is what
I see various people on the net appearing to convict Tony of.  My
reservation is that I don't wish to be railroaded by net.persons if
I'm up for a trial as I see Tony being railroaded.  My analogy holds.

>>Can you see where it is *possible* that
>>Tony might not be directly responsible?  Can you not also see where
>>the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" as used to find somebody guilty
>>*might* apply in this case?

>Ah yes, always someone else's fault.

	I never said that.  Read it again if you wish, but it doesn't
appear in my text.  I said only "directly responsible."  Why else do
you think we make a difference between Murder 1 and anything else that
involves a death?  The difference between murder 1 and vehicular homicide
is intent and planning, not the number of deaths which is what we
seem to be concerned about here.  Doesn't Tony deserve, as a citizen
no matter if he is a cop, a trial if evidence points towards wrongdoing?

>Police are civilians
>too, as much as they hate the idea.

	I *love* the idea!  How can I deny rights unless I deny them to
myself first?  You seem to deny the right to a fair trial in the case
of Tony, so I'm curious as to how you deny them to yourself as a citizen?
Actually, I can't legally deny rights at all, so perhaps the wording
needs to be changed.  The sentiments are still the same.

>  If I picked up my pistol and shot
>someone who appeared to be comitting a criminal act and that person 
>later turned out to be innocent, I'd be charged with murder.  Plain
>and simple.  The same damn rules should apply to that cop.

	Of course.  Have I said differently?  Balance this being
charged with being pronounced guilty by net.personalities like
ourselves who aren't a jury.

>The only
>reasonable doubt I'd entertain would pertain to whether or not Tony's
>bullet murdered that woman.  That established, if I were on the jury
>that apparently will never hear the case, he'd be going to jail.

	Remind me to never ask you to judge the difference between
unintentional homicide, manslaughter, and murder 1.  That we have
differing degrees of punishment for these since they differ on
intent seems to have escaped your notice.

>>        And if Tony was innocent, or the law didn't cover or even
>>allowed his particular crime?  I say exercise your power as a voter
>>and change the law, not lambaste Tony because you aren't satisfied.  

>The law is already there.  It is not being enforced because tony is a 
>cop.  Period.

	So far as you know, that is.  THere were civilians on that board.
That it wasn't hung on a cop-civilian basis seems to be deserving of some
thought, or do you think the Tony King beaters (cops) were not innocent
because they were cops and the jury of civilians found them not guilty?
I do feel the procedures are too lax, but the law applies to everybody
equally, and this is never more true than when a civilian jury hands in
the verdict.

>>>TONY dropped the hammer on that woman.

>>	Again, if you can prove it you should take that proof and use
>>it to prosecute Tony at a trial.

>I want to hear your attempt to claim that he DIDN'T drop the hammer on
>that women.  Are you disputing that fact?  I would expect out of someone
>who knows so little of the law that he thinks I could prosecute Tony 
>in a trial.  Lord knows I would if I could.

	How about a discharge due to that MP5 firing pin being a
bit sticky, such that it dented the primer but didn't cause a normal
immediate discharge?  Is it possible?  Yes.  Is it probable?  No.
Does "beyond a reasonable doubt" enter here?  Damn strait!  I never
said Tony was innocent, only that he should be considered so until
proven guilty.  That you cannot prosecute him underscores this, as it
points to your lacking enough facts to make a case.

>>The justice system is fairly impartial, and I'd like
>>to see it kept that way, your or my emotions notwithstanding.

>You sound like a customer for some ocean-front land in Arizona.  if you 
>think there is ANYTHING impartial about the decisions regarding who is
>arrested, who is prosecuted and who is convicted, you are a blithering 
>idiot.  Maybe you ought to get involved and see just how the system works.
>Or come down here some time and I'll give you a personal demonstration.
>We'll go blazing through my town and when we get pulled over, I'll flash
>my ID.  I won't get a ticket from that "impartial cop."  It works the
>same way for larger crimes as it does for speeding.

	Does that mean the verbal warnings I've recieved for 150+ in a
55 zone, and for 73 on radar in a 25mph zone despite no fancy ID are
impartial, or does it mean that the DA would have strung me up by my
short hairs had he found out, but the cop didn't arrest me for some
reason only he knows?  You cannot elect police officers.  You can the
chief of police and the DA.  If they fail to do their job, or the
individual cops do, why are you bitching about all cops in general?
I don't bitch about you owning a gun despite that Hinkley did, so
where can you take your example and make it the rule of law enforcement?
Hell, I've an uncle who is chief of police.  Guess who gave me a
speeding ticket?  That your ID gets you off the hook to some cops is
no reason to think it will in all cases (exception: congress), but
by the same token that's a big difference from saying your ID will
get you off the hook in all cases based on all cases.  Try that
same stunt here, and you'll not get much sympathy for whatever your
ID says.  I suggest this is a problem with individual officers, not
with police as a whole, and if it's a DA of CoP problem you can vote
to get more ethical people in those offices.

>BTW, you seemed to have forgotten to answer my previous question.  You know,
>the one where I asked you if you'd still be as impartial and supportive
>of the police after the storm YOUR house and kill someone you love.
>"Oh, but I'm a fine, upstanding citizen.  That can't happen to me.
>After all, I excuse anything the cops do." you say.   Funny,
>I'll bet that lady and her husband and kids thought the same thing.

	I am as impartial and supportive of the police as I am of
any other citizen, John.  I thought I made that clear.  That I've not
lost a family member to a cop is no more reason to feel them innocent
in all cases as my losing family members to doctors is reason to feel
all doctors guilty in all cases.  The difference, I say, lies in the
individual situations as judged by an impartial jury.  You already
know I've been shot.  That I don't think the public needs to be
disarmed because of the actions of a few idiots should make my
position abundantly clear.  To sum it up in two words: individual
responsibility.  Let's get back to letting a jury decide this, rather
than armchair jurists who lack the benefit of many facts.

<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