From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 3
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:31:00 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) /  8:13 pm  Aug 24, 1992 /
>But it did not fail.  It functioned as designed.  The USER failed.
>
>	I'll make the same challenge to you that I did to somebody else:
>if you can prove this, lend this proof to the court.  If you cannot, then
>would you mind qualifying things somehow?  "Based on what I've read here," is
>a good method of doing that.  I've seen nothing to state specifically that
>the MP5 did or did not fail.  Tony is guilty of not maintaining proper
>muzzle dicipline, given that at such close ranges it's nearly impossible for
>a human to move into the path of a bullet.  This is a far cry from murder.

There isn't much argument about this one.  The MP5 functioned as
designed.  The question revolves around the circumstances of the
shooting.  Was pulling the trigger justified at the time?  (In
RETROSPECT, no.)  Was it an excusable mistake?  (Would the average
person, with Tony's training in the same circumstances do the same
thing?  Based on the reports and review, likely yes.)  Should Tony have
been there in the first place?  I don't know and it isn't relevant to
his actions once he was there.  Our legal system thinks he was there
legally so we need to change the system on that one.

I don't this was an AD (or ND as some of us call it.)  It was either a
'reflex action' (Saw threat to children and reacted too soon before
positively identifying the threat.) or, a mistaken ID, (he was convinced
that this was the 'bad guy' attacking the children.)

My inclination is that there were at least some elements of the first
scenario.  He reacted instinctively (and incorrectly) to a fast breaking
situation.  In these cases we (at least in WA) judge them by the
standard of the 'reasonable man' just like anything else.  That is, was
what Tony did what the average person with his training and knowledge of
the situation would have done?

In this case he didn't know the woman personally, so there is no reason
to believe that there was any intent to 'murder' anybody.  The only two
reasonable criminal judgments are negligent homicide, or involuntary
manslaughter, or a judgement of excusable homicide.

I don't like modern police tactics any more than anybody else in this
forum.  I don't see how we can hold this one individual responsible for
something that is societies fault.  Why should we signal him out to
punish him for a mistake that any of us would likely have done in the
same position?  If there were no such thing as a non criminal mistake,
there would be no such ruling as excusable homicide.

Nor do I think all police shootings are automatically excusable
homicide.  I simply feel that in this one case, it is.  I have used more
information that what I've read in the net and newspapers to make my own
personal decision.

If you can't admit to yourself that you might very well have done the
same thing, you probably either have never been in such a situation or
you haven't thought it out.

Imagine yourself in a poorly lit room.  You've identified the potential
hostages.  A door bursts open.  You now have about 1 second to evaluate
the threat to you and your charges.  All innocents are SUPPOSED to be
secured.  If you don't fire and the 'shadow' is hostile, you've given up
your hostages.  From here, it is difficult.  It is impossible to know
exactly what triggered Tony's fire.  It could have been a shadow that
looked like a weapon, or a number of other things.  Certainly just being
startled isn't an excuse and from those I've talked to, they don't
believe that was the reason he fired.

True, he could be covering this up, but there is no reason to think so.
There is good reason to believe that this was a traumatic incident for
Tony as well.  It is not unusual for the mind to block out the actual
event.

It is easy to say, 'make the correct decision'.  I would challenge
anybody who thinks that they are infallible, (or think that they know
anybody that is infallible) to try this scenario a few times.  Remember,
one mistake means an innocent dies.  If you can't figure out a way to
set this up to screw the 'cop,' let me introduce you to my pistol
instructor.

Actually, this is an unfair challenge.  I've done it and the person
setting up the exercise can usually fool you into doing the wrong thing.
Sometimes 'real life' can fool you too.

Rick.

There was a self defense shooting in the area last night.  The shooter,
25 is out on his own recognizance pending a review.  The assailant, 20 is 
in the morgue.  I hope this citizen is judged with the same set of
standards as Tony.  If the past is any indication, and this was a case
of self defense, there will be no charges filed.  Thank God I don't live
where some of these posts are coming from.  On the other hand, I guess
God hasn't got anything to do with it.  I live here by choice....