From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2  (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:56:35 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

>From: gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray)

>Rick, I'm trying hard to control my temper because you seem to be
>awfully partial to the "poor officer" while my feelings are reserved for
>the "poor daughter, mother, niece, and husband."  But I do not want this to
>be a flame--I'm trying hard to stick to the facts.  I do appreciate your
>information about the cop who did the killing.

Temper should have nothing to do with it.  Don't be ashamed about
arguing from an emotional basis, at least you are up front about it.

I on the other hand am simply talking physiology human action/reaction
under stress.  This is something that has been studied in detail.  I
happen to know a little about the subject.  I feel for the 'poor'
officer because I have a pretty good idea what he went through and I've
been in situations that lead to me to believe that 'there but for the
grace of God go I.'  (Or any of us in this discussion.)  That doesn't
mean that I feel any less for the family.  What it does mean, is that I
feel that the officer is being made (unfairly) the scape goat in an
incident that isn't primarily his fault.  You guys want to pick the easy
targets and damn the facts.  At the same time you are condemning this
officer for unintentionally doing what you are intentionally doing!

Have you stopped to think about his family and what they are going
through?  I didn't think so.

>>My biggest question is:  What the hell ever happened to the line,
>>'This is the police.  You are surrounded. Come out with your hands up.!'???
>
>Amen.  Furthermore, what ever happened to the idea that "the right of the
>people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
>UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . ."?

Actually after my post last week, I talked to some more of my 'insiders'
and got an answer to this.  I wasn't real comfortable with it, but here
goes.

The reason they got a no knock warrant was BECAUSE of the KIDS!  They
knew the kids were in there and they were afraid that the kids would
be used as hostages if the situation wasn't secured quickly.

>How can anyone defend a military assault against a family home on the basis
>of an anonymous tip as "reasonable?"  Maybe an arrest warrant was reasonable
>under the circumstances (I'm skeptical, but I do not know what was said in
>the anonymous phone call), but certainly not a commando raid.

I got an education on this too.  Turns out 'anonymous tip' is true only
from the standpoint of the judge.  The officer has to 'champion' his
tipster to the judge.  Judge: Why should I issue a warrant on this guy's
say so?  Cops:  Well, your honor, he is the same fellow who gave us so
and so, etc.

In short, this guy had been right FOUR times before.  Like it or not, a
LARGE percentage of crime gets solved this way.  I'm not sure how this
is reconciled with the fourth amendment, but you can bet that the
individual officer isn't an attorney.  Often he is just trying to do the
best job he or she can.

>>In short, why did they use DEA drug raid tactics on a simple arrest?
>>Why were both the police officers and innocent citizens endangered for
>>no apparently good reason?

And I got my answer.  I'm not saying I agree, but one could make a very
good case that it was done for the safety of all concerned.

>The kids didn't put a submachinegun into their hands and shoot an innocent
>woman to death, but he didn't see the police he has been raised to trust
>and rely on butcher his mother or aunt before his helpless eyes.

Neither did Tony pick up a submachinegun and go hunting for innocents to
shoot.  He had the mp5 handed to him, was briefed about what was
supposed to be a very dangerous situation, and sent in to PROTECT those
kids.  Lighting, speed of events and a mothers actions precipitated a
tragedy.

Had the informant not been lying, that would probably have been the
murderer/robber going for the children to hold them hostage.  That is
all the information that this officer had.

>I reckon the kids the kids feel *much* worse and have very little chance
>of ever really recovering from the trauma.  He, on the other hand, cannot
>possibly feel badly enough.

I doubt either of us can make this statement.  I haven't inadvertently
killed anybody, nor have my parents been accidently killed.  Unless your
job involves split second life and death decisions concerning your life
and others, you probably can't either.

Try to imagine, you're heading home from work late one night and run
that mother down with your car.  Will you just shrug it off?  Will it
continue to haunt you forever?  Maybe it will be judged an accident and
maybe you won't go to jail.  Will it not continue to haunt you anyway?
If you are a normal human being, I'll bet it will continue to haunt you
long after the children are married, have children of their own and have
largely forgotten it.  But then, maybe you aren't human, or maybe I'm
oversensitive.  Maybe you could forget it.  I don't think I could.

>In your opinion, then, there is nothing wrong with storming a house with
>deadly weapons you cannot control and killing innocent people?  "Tony"
>_took_an_OATH_ to defend the Constitution!  You cannot take that oath and
>then assert a Nurenburg defense when you screw up!

I never said that, now did I?  As it turns out, he was told to
participate in a very delicate apprehension of a murderer/robber in a
situation where potential hostages needed to be protected.  I suppose he
could have quit his job, but he had no reason to believe otherwise.  If
every cop quit their job every time they were put into danger or every
time their actions could potentially endanger an innocent, we wouldn't
have a police force.  Unless you are arguing that this would be a good
thing, then your point here is meaningless.

>I am sick to death of people whining about how tough it is to be a cop
>when their objective is to excuse the incompetence or bloodthirstiness
>of brutalizing or murderous scoundrels.

If you think it is such an easy job, why don't you go show them how to
do it?  There is probably going to be a job opening on the SWAT team
here in Shohomish County.

Perhaps I've lost some of my objectivity.  I shoot with some of these
guys on a regular basis.  I get a very different account of what happens
than I see in the media.  After hearing both sides of the story, I'm
quite happy working for Boeing, thank you. I DON'T WANT their job.

>Poor "Tony!"  He has these delusions of competence, gets to carry a big
>bad SMG, gets to kill entirely innocent women stupid enough to care more
>for their babies than themselves, and as special bonuses, gets to make the
>kids watch it AND gets to have the _criminal_ justice (how aptly named!)
>system tell him it's all ok, now go back to work.

If you really believe this, you have some serious problems.  Either that
or you have a lot of growing up to do regardless of your true age.

>"Poor Tony," wearing a bulletproof vest, carrying an SMG, executing a
>criminal invasion of peaceful people's home, startled by crying children
>into killing their Mommy.  Tough break for "poor Tony."

Poor Tony.  In a building where he has been told that there is a
murderer loose.  Sees a shadow lunge for the kids, hears a shot, the
shadow is down and now he is trying to figure out what is going on...
Try it yourself sometime.  And regardless what you think, it WASN'T a
criminal invasion.

>God only knows how he'll react in other stressful situations--like
>writing parking tickets or crucifying jaywalkers.

You people that sit in your arm chairs and make these sort of judgements
would be funny if you weren't so scary.  What do you think YOU would
have done?  As I told another poster, I have no doubt that you could be
put into a (simulated) scenario where you would inadvertently cap your
own mother.  If you don't believe this then you haven' tried it.

>Wrong.  If I had decided that I had to be there--and I would not have on
>this kind of flimsy evidence, I'd have reconned the area and learned that
>children lived there.  And I resent the implication that because "poor
>Tony" is an incompetent, cowardly, triggerhappy mommykiller, that the rest
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is real adult....

>of us are, too.

As I said, it turns out that the children were the primary reason they
decided to go in quick.  What would you have done different?

>Sorry, Rick--I'm going over the line, and I do not want to.  But you
>absolutely cannot exonerate the guy in the trenches.  Until *everyone*
>in this once wonderful country takes personal responsibility for their
>actions, we will never reverse the tide of decay rising around us.

Yes you are over the line.  You are looking for a scape goat and picked
the least substantive one you could.  You are responding emotionally
rather than rationally.

>"Poor Tony" shot and killed that woman.  No one else did it.  He is a
>grown man sworn to defend a constitution he probably has not even read.
>He allowed himself to be put into that position and allowed himself to be
>deceived that what he was doing was ok.  He has to be held accountable--
>and every single piece of used food in the chain of command on that
>Godforsaken raid must be similarly held liable.

You seem to feel that anybody doing their job should be crucified for
any mistake they make.  Perhaps in your job people's lives don't hang in
the balance with your every split second decision.  Bear in mind,
Doctors and hospitals deal with life and death situations every day.
They also kill about 160,000 people that wouldn't otherwise die every
year.  Police are human too.  They make mistakes.  Sometimes when they
make mistakes, people die too.  Consider if you ever need surgery:  The
record of the police is probably better than your doctors.....

>But you are part of the voting public that allowed this system to
>entrench itself.  It is you and your fellow citizens who *must* pay the
>damages to this family, and I hope for *my* family's sake that it sets
>a new indoor record.  I hope your cops cannot afford new cars, or shoes, or
>patrol cars for fifty years.  I hope your judges never get another pay
>raise.  I hope your streets rot to muddy potholes and your taxes are
>the highest in the world.  I hope this bankrupts Seattle.

You will pay too.  Do you think that our county will pay out of it's own
pocket?  I'll be we're in the same insurance pool......

>Sorry if I got too contentious there.  But we either hold these creatures
>responsible--good and hard--or we have to live with them (or die trying to
>be rid of them).

Actually, you don't need to apologize.  Most of your arguments are
emotional and appear to lack a real understanding of the way the real
world works. As such, they are excusable.  You'll probably grow up
someday.

As it turns out, the major part of blame probably lies with a
(previously) reliable informant that for some reason had it in for these
folks.  I'm really at a loss as to what to do about it.

I've been convinced that under the circumstances the method was probably
justified, I've been convinced that the police had every reason to
believe they were correct in being there.

Certainly there is some personal responsibility involved.  However, if
you decided to hold your doctor to the same standard that you hold this
public servant, you'd more than likely find that he'd refuse to touch
you, even to TRY to save your life.  Think about it....

Rick.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns