From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 3
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:46:36 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:

>All the arrests went well, except the one.  In this case the police KNEW
>that there were children in the house.  The reason that they went in
>quickly was because they were worried that the 'bad guy' might try to
>use the children as hostages, and it was decided that with the
>information that they had been able to obtain, this was the safest path
>for everybody.

Bullshit!  The police stormed in with the intent of getting the perp
who had killed "one of us."  That cowboy with the MP5 was cocked and
ready to have the perp try something so he could kill him because he
was a "cop killer." (even if the cop may have been a rent-a-cop.)

Let's look at your logic.  We have a perp who has allegedly killed a 
guard asleep in a house full of other innocents.  Since he has 
(allegedly) killed one cop, he would likely not hesitate in shooting
again.  In this circumstance, you're claiming that the safest method
to arrest this fellow was to storm the damn place gestapo-style?
How crazy can you get?

The safe thing to do was to do sufficient police work to first ascertain
the perp was even in the house.  This tiny bit of gumsole work would
have stopped this murder in its tracks.  But assume the guy was in there.
The safest method to capture him would have been to have waited him out.
Grab him when he walks out of the house.  Even if he shoots back, the 
cops will be behind cover and he will be separated from the innocents.
This kind of police work does not garner headlines and it does not
give the cowboys an opportunity to achieve erections so it is no longer
used.  Just run'n'gun and if there's a little collateral damage, well,
too bad.

Even the excuse of simultaneous arrest does not fly.  ON THE FACE OF IT,
THAT IS A LIE since the cops did not even know where the perp was.
Beyond that, each perp could have been grabbed, along with any witnesses
and held in lockup for the period of time it took to get them all.
Yeah, it might be a risk of having one or more of them walk due to 
rights violations but given a choice of a perp getting off or an
innocent being shot down like a dog, which would your choose?

>Tony had just crashed through a glass door.  For some reason I'm not
>real clear on, the lighting was not good.  He located the children.
>Suddenly there was a commotion, and an indistinct figure came suddenly
>into the room, towards the children.  Tony's mp5 discharged a single
>bullet, hitting the figure in the throat, killing her.

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.
Tony's MP5 acted like any other inanimate object - it responded by
functioning as designed.  Nice try, though, trying to blame an 
inanimate object.  Got your HCI card yet?

>A police review judged that Tony's action was not criminal.

>A coroners inquest, in a split decision agreed.

>Tony is restored to active duty.

Bet they refilled his magazine too.


>My opinions:

>A lot of people seem to be peeved that there wasn't some sort of
>criminal trial.  Perhaps this is because they don't realize how the law
>is set up in WA.  First of all, let me explain that Washington isn't
>like some locations where every shooter is automatically charged with
>something, police or civilian.  

The law has little to do with this.  The prosecutor has broad powers in
cases like these.  I know how this stuff works. I've worked in a 
prosecutor's office and one of my good friends is an ex DA, now judge.
The prosecutor could have charged this cop with anything ranging from
reckless endangerment to manslaughter to murder.  This would have done
three things.  First, it would have gotten this trigger-happy yahoo 
off the streets before he could kill again.  Second, the system 
would be given an opportunity to determine the facts and met out 
punishment as indicated.  Third, it might go a bit of the way toward 
reestablishing police accountability.  As it is now, Tony can think "Say,
that wasn't so bad. You CAN get away with murder under color of law."

>As to what actually happened in that room, nobody really knows.  That
>officer had kids.  The scene was supposed to be secured.  It is possible
>his mind interpreted the sudden unexpected movement towards the kids as
>a threat to them and reacted.  He may never know exactly why.  The mind
>often blanks out terrible incidents to some degree, this is well
>established fact for anybody that cares to spend much time investigating
>these types of incidents.

Another lame attempt to depersonalize this crime.  Unless his mind has hands,
it did nothing.  TONY dropped the hammer on that woman.

>There is no doubt that Tony made a mistake.  The important points to
>keep in mind:  Two investigations, one by an independent civil authority
>absolved him of all blame.  Secondly, from what I have been able to
>determine, any of us might have reacted the same way.

>Basically, most of the posts I've seen fall into one of three
>categories.

>3) Civil rights folks who are outraged over a warrant being issued in
>the first place.

Let's try another catagory.  Those of us who have been associated with 
the police long enough to know how they think, how they cover for each
other and how they view the public (perps and potential perps.) and 
see this as just another case of a civilian suffering at the hands of 
a police department out of control and a trigger-happy individual cop.

>I suppose I belong to the last group to some extent.  I don't think that
>it is fair that a person can become trusted enough by the police to get
>a swat type raid pulled on somebody.  In fact this quite pisses me off.
>But this has nothing to do directly with Tony's actions in this
>situations.  I honestly feel that people should get off of his case.

He was only doing his duty, right?  You make me sick.  Toss in the Saran
next time and don't bother with the vagrancies of firearms.


>Still, you have to remember that the persons that the police thought
>they were apprehending where murderers and robbers.  Not the sort of
>people I'd like left running around loose longer than they have to.

Based only on the word of a fellow scumbag.  

>I feel that this was a dreadful tragedy, but probably an unavoidable
>one.  As nearly as I have been able to tell, all the officials acted in
>good faith, and nobody, including Tony was negligent.  A woman is dead
>who didn't deserve it.  Nobody wanted that and nobody planned it that
>way.  Is arbitrarily signaling out one person to hold responsible any
>fairer?

>Actually parsing this has been somewhat of a problem for me.  Each step
>along the way, investigation, warrant, raid, etc. seems to make pretty
>good sense.  Right up until the bang.  Even that make sense in light of
>the actual situation.  (I didn't say it was right, just that I could
>understand it, mind you.)  Still, I have a hard time putting my finger
>on any one thing.

Rick, after someone you have pissed off with this thread drops a
dime on you, the storm troopers come and break down your door
and after the smoke clears, you see your wife or child on the
floor with their brains on the wall, let's see if YOU accept the
explanation of it being an "innocent mistake." I want to be
there up close and personal to hear your wailing.   

Me, I always remember the old saying, "But for the Grace of God, there
go I."

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.