From: gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Need Better NRA Ads NOW !
Date: 13 Nov 92 23:24:30 GMT
Organization: Demi-Public System (One of the Eternal Champions); Eagan, MN, 55123-2507, USA

hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:

>In article <1992Nov5.193203.1664@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>}In other words, if the police burst into your house with machine guns,
>}wearing masks, without identifying themselves, you shouldn't even think
>}about defending yourself?
>}
>}Innocent people are killed in that kind of raid.

>Innocent people get killed trying to defend themselves in those
>situations.  Criminals know the score and surrender.  They survive.

>I don't approve of that sort of behavior on the part of the police,
>either.  However, once the situation is going down, it's no time to argue
>morality and the rights and wrongs of it.  You will be facing a squad of
>heavily armed and armored professionals who think you're a dangerous
>criminal.  If they see anything in your hand that _might_ be a gun they
>will likely blow you away.  If you manage to shoot first, let alone hit
>one of them, your chances of survival effectively go to zero.

>That's the reality of it.  You can argue about what _should_ be all you
>want.  The fact is your best bet is to put your hands on top of your head
>and do whatever they tell you to do. _After_ they figure out they've got
>the wrong house you can start making noises about lawyers and damages if
>you want to.  At least you'll still be around to do it.

Jerry, I'm sure there's still room in your kill file for me :-) even
though I'mnot especially eager to occupy it.

But I think you may be tactically right and strategically wrong.

I cannot argue that it may be safer to not resist, but as we've seen here,
the cops are not above killing innocent mothers for trying to protect their
kids in such raids.  As Blackstone put it, some outrages are beyond the
scope of any future remedy.  And I do not have a particularly high level
of expectation for the integrity of cops who screw up and kill the innocent,
unresisting or not.

Cops lie as a matter of routine to protect one another.  You may know a
reasonably honest cop or two.  "Reasonably honest" means that s/he will not
fabricate a charge against you--but neither will s/he testify against
a Fellow Officer for recklessness, excessive force, or shooting unjustly.

And that's the reality of _that_.

Now there are some Real Bad People out there, folks who would be Bad
regardless of the War on Drugs/Civil Rights or not.  There are some cases
wherein commando tactics are the best bet to get an arrest and trial instead
of a firefight.  So it's a tough issue to call from a distance.  Some people
live in cities wherein the local stormtroopers truly do not give a damn
about rights, constitutional or otherwise.  Fighting some of these may be
the best and only hope of forcing reform--even if it is postmortem.

If you are convinced that the cops in your jurisdiction truly respect the
constitution and truly use the least force necessary and genuinely seek
warrants only on Real probable cause, and _especially_ if you think that
the cops will effectively discipline themselves by placing criminal charges
against triggerhappy and brutal cops, then fine.  Roll over and play
dead when they come for you.  But stretch a little and realize that not
all of us are served by such cops.

Basically, the willingness to die confers the ability to live.  If you are
not willing to die for your principles, you are at the mercy of anyone
able to convince you that they will kill you.  I've a lot to live for,
but those same things are reason enough to die for.

And that's why there's Amendment II--not to make it easy or safe, just
possible to defend yourself.

Bill
-- 
gray@hawkmoon.mn.org
This site gets a fair news feed, but e-mail is more reliable. . . :-(
"Veni, vidi, vomiti!"  -- the ghost of Tom Jefferson on reading the Brady Bill
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns