From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 01:34:39 GMT

	You know, I think we're starting to agree.  I don't know if this is
because we've become better able to express our views, our views have changed
a bit, or if I'm just too short and it's all flying over my head.

PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>>	They are not, agreed, and thus my reasoning that pulling a gun
>>at a traffic stop is wrong.  However, in the no-knock mentioned above,
>>or when the cop is arresting a murderer or the like, I feel prudence
>>makes a ready weapon mandatory.

>     Under a no-knock situation where they are *sure* the murderer is
>in residence, yes, perhaps they are justified.  I object to the use
>(and increasing use) of no-knock assaults at all.  They are being more
>and more used where they shouldn't be, and irresponsibly.  We also
>have situations like this where a citizen ends up dead and *nobody*
>is even charged.

	Justice was not in evidence for anybody in the assault we are
referring too.  Good intelligence, also a prudent move that's even more
important than a ready weapon in many cases, was also missing.  Somebody
needs to be held responsible.  Tony does too.  Let's give them better
treatment at the hands of the law than the recently demised in terms
of fairness.  A downward spiral of respect for the law helps nobody.

>>My crime of murder is enough,
>>in my eyes, for a cop to bust me gun drawn.

>     *If* you commited a murder.  *If* the police know you are there.  *If*
>they have cause to believe you are armed.  Not just "because" or "maybe."

	Prudence dictates that I wear a seatbelt because there are known to
be incompent drivers and equipment malfunctions that can harm me.  In the
same manner, a suspected murderer charge is not proof of any intent or even
ability to harm the officer, but it is unwise to assume these cannot exist
because they haven't been proven.  The wise move is to assume he is most
likely armed and his past actions show he's willing to use that weapon,
then plan and prepare.  Good itel can make weapons unnecessary for the
arresting officers even if the subject is armed, but only fools don't
have a backup plan when intel fails.

>     Let's return to the situation we are discussing.  A no-knock raid
>when the suspect was not there, where an unarmed woman was killed by
>a police officer.

>     That is not justified.  If the police officer was misinformed, then
>somebody up the chain of command *must* be *at least* brought up of
>something like criminal negligence.  I am not asking the police to give
>up their defense, only that they be held responsible, like everybody else
>when they screw up.  And if they aren't then I hope *their* bosses (the
>general population) are held responsible with a *big* settlement.

	Who planned the raid, who authorized it, and Tony himself have a
lot of questions to answer -- on the witness stand!  They are now the
suspects, are they not?  We're agreeing, aren't we?

>>	When a soldier comes out, does the soldier shoot or look
>>first for a weapon?

>     The police are not soldiers.  Ninety-nine point nine percent don't
>patrol anything even vagueles reminiscent of a battlefield.

	You're right, of course, in this.  That 0.1% worry me.

>The police don't have uniforms to distinguish
>>an enemy, thus I expect other factors to make the distinction for them.
>>I don't disagree, but I have my reservations depending on the situation.

>     It has been my observation that because of this, police lump people
>into two categories:  Cops and Not-Cops.  People with badges are your friend,
>while people without badges are criminals that haven't been caught.
>     I can understand this mentality to an extent.  When someone dies over
>it, the cop gets thrown in the clink just like the rest of us poor schmucks
>who don't get to abuse the system on a regulare basis.

	Wow, we agree again!  Given the rather permenant effects of trusting
that nobody means you any harm, I can understand this bit of paranoia on
behalf of the cops in some areas.  Being paranoid, however, doesn't mean
kill all you suspect.  It means be wary.  They should have been wary of the
informant and checked his claims, too, but somebody forgot.  Find him.  In
addition, I wonder if the informant has been arrested?  Isn't there a law
against giving false testimony that applies in this case?

>>	Being a lawful gun owner, I prefer to be thought of as
>>competent by default than as incompetent until proven so.  By the
>>same token, I expect the police to be competent until proven
>>otherwise.  In the case we refer to, somebody was incompetent and
>>should be punished.  Who that is, exactly, I don't know.  But a
>>review should present such information.  I expect to be held to
>>task for my usage of a weapon, and expect the same from the police.
>>I think we agree here, at least in principle.
>>

>     Someone is dead.  *Someone* screwed up.  I don't think that is
>up for debate.  I believe it was you who suggested that it wasn't
>right to hold the citizenry responsible with a multi-million dollar
>civil award that will do nothing but take money from the police and
>raise taxes.

	Yup, I stated it, and I believe this because the taxpayer was
not at fault.  Stupid for voting that chief of police in, perhaps, but
not responsible for the act.  They are responsible for handing down justice
from their position as jurists, and of voting their conscience in the next
election.  These can only happen after the fact.

>     As the voting population of our respective areas, were *are* at the
>top of the chain of command.  If we, as the voting public, refuse to hold
>our police officers responsible, then we, as the voting public, should
>be prepared *ourselves* to be held responsible.

	So who has to pay?  Collective responsibility means collective
punishment too, and nobody wants to incarcerate citizens when a cop
screws up.  I'd like to see the police department holding bake sales to
raise the money, personally, or hold a bond issue (since it requires them
to pay it back) and cut their budget a bit.  Overtime without pay for
the officers (not street cops, the management), for example, can free
up several thousands of dollars in even a small city.  Walking downtown
on Saturday night instead of everybody driving cruisers saves even more.
Devote manpower to issuing summons' for those unpaid parking tickets.
In Ames, if you fail to pay you're paid a visit.  You can write the
check then, or appear in court next week and pay court costs too.  It's
quite effective.  Can similar programs allow the police to be punished
for what they did, and isolate those who do the work and were not involved
from those who were involved and were responsible?  That military
structure should serve to not only make Chief Whoozits responsible for
the actions of Officer Whatsisname, it also serves to keep the officer
isolated from the actions of the Chief.  I say we need to use that to
punish, and protect, those who deserve it.

<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. >