From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 02:10:49 GMT

	I really hope others are enjoying and benefiting from this little
debate.  If you are or aren't, e-mail me.  If I get a lot of "kill it"
responses and few "I like it" responses I'll move it to e-mail.

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

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

>     No.  Any person a police officer may attempt to apprehend is
>a citizen  Period.  He has no justification to decide before-hand,
>nor do his superiors, that such-and-such a citizen is "the enemy"
>or that the police may consider any person they find in some area
>as "the enemy."
>     Police officers are not soldiers.  They are not fighting a war.
>Their opponents are not one like-minded foe.

	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.  It's not that I grant cops any special
powers, just that I disagree with the idea that they need to be targets
until a bona-fide threat exhibits itself.  My crime of murder is enough,
in my eyes, for a cop to bust me gun drawn.  If I attempt to pull a
weapon, he can shoot me.  If I don't, he can cuff me.  Let the
lawyers battle with how my rights were violated or whatever, but I
personally feel I need not threaten a cop directly before he is
justified in being able to neutralize threats based upon my past behavior.

	I think we're agreed in this, so I'm deleting quite a bit from
this posting.  I hope you don't mind.

>     Suspects or criminals are not "combatants" unless they present
>an immediate threat.  It absurd to suggest that the police should
>patrol in full-body kevlar armor and pull sub-machineguns on shop-
>lifters.

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

>     We expect mistakes to happen.  Police are human.  That is why
>we both expect mistakes from good people and try and limit the power
>available for abuse from bad people.
>     But when somebody screws up and somebody *dies* it is not enough
>to say, "Well, mistakes happen."

	No it is not, and I don't believe I have ever said this is
what I wish to be the case.  However, can I fault the officer if the
information given to him was wrong?  In that case, I start looking at
his superiors, and there should be at least an inquiry, and then a
trial if the inquiry finds any problems with the events.

>     The police more and more are relying on innacruate information
>which can't be verified, such as anonymous tips.  It is flat out
>irresponsible all the way up the command line to send a SWAT assault
>team into a house with children without at least determining whether
>the suspect was even there.

	Believe me, there are chiefs of police who agree with you, in
addition to myself.

>     Understand my reservations.  When the police can kill someone
>without fear of reprisal, what is there to stop those bad apples
>mentioned above from abusing their power?  All you examples assume
>that the police officer is aware, careing, and competent.  Not all,
>or even most in some places, of police officers qualify for this.

	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.

>     A woman is dead.  DEAD.  That is hurt enough in my book.
>It reminds me of the local police officer who killed a woman by
>shooting here in the back of a the head when his Glock discharged
>accidentally (twice).

	I cannot bring her back to life, or ease the trauma her
family feels.  Given just the above info, the officer needs to be
tried and punished if guilty.  Note the "if" there.  If the gun
itself malfunctioned, it wasn't his fault, and I won't prosecute
for actions not taken by him.

>     If the police are told a dangerous criminal is there, then
>guns drawn are perhaps justified.  If they storm someone's house
>with guns drawn and their information is wrong, *somebody* along
>the line has screwed up bad enough to *lose their job!*

	And they should be held responsible, and prosecuted.  This
*may not* mean the officer acting under poor information is guilty,
but indeed the person responsible needs to be found out.

>     The police officer is more than welcome to defend himself.  He
>better be *damn* sure that the individual presents a threat.

	A minor nit: what constitutes a threat?  See below for a
few areas where a threat did not appear, but one certainly could
have been.  Each situation is different, and lacking the training
to spot them I give the benefit of the doubt, but note that this
is my only reason and that a board of inquiry should be held in each
instance to avoid the "I know it, you don't, let me go" syndrome.

>>                        Should the bank guard notice something
>>"funny" about the "suspected" customer, is he not justified in
>>being prepared?  Releasing the safety strap, or drawing the weapon,
>>should not be done just because one customer looks nervous.  But,
>>intuition may say something more, and not being in that position
>>and knowing what was felt, I'm willing to give the police the same
>>leeway I expect when I find somebody strange prowling around my
>>house at night.  He may be looking for a lost dog, but I'm a fool

>>
>     We are not discussing whether the police have the right to
>be prepared.  What we're discussin is whether it is an "ok" mistake
>if a bank guard shoots down a customer who is pulling a pen from his
>jacket pocket.  *I* expect he'll be arrested, tried, and probably
>go to jail.
>     This is what happens to police officers who screw up the
>same way.

	Agreed, 100%.  Prepared, to me, means the bank guard draws
and aims his weapon in this instance.  He fires *only* if that pen
happens to turn out to be a firearm.  He draws when the suspect
reaches into his jacket pocket, and secures the weapon when the suspect
starts filling out the deposit check.  I see no fundamental differences
here, save perhaps what causes that guard to draw.

>     How about putting his hand on his sidearm and asking, "What is
>that in your pocket, sir?"

	Again, situational, as my pants holster might allow me to
draw a weapon faster than his rig might, and the area might allow me
to take a hostage as cover before either of us was able to draw.  I
refer this to the board of inquiry.  Once I attended a concert with a
rifle scope in my front pocket, as it was easier to use than binoculars
and also cheaper.  I was slammed against a wall, frisked, and was
given many apologies by the cop who thought I might have been armed.
At first, I thought this stupid since my pocket could not have
contained a firearm.  After thinking about it, I think he did the
right thing.  That I wasn't carrying is moot, but that I was quite
likely carrying in a place where I could not was the point, and I
feel he acted out of the best interests of himself and the public.
I can't ask for more, especially from people who I expect to protect
me from dangerous people.

	Again, I suspect we agree in principle, if not in detail.  My
only point is that I cannot expect a cop to do more than I can, nor
can I put his life in jeopardy just so I don't get frisked when I
am percieved as a threat.

<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