From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Time to Fight
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:27:33 GMT

In <1992Aug31.172747.13234@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:

>	If Johhny Dealer flushes a pound or two of shit down the toilet, who
>	cares.  Johnny Dealer can be nicked in many ways that do not violate
>	the rights of honest citizens. [...]
>	With a little imagination and PATIENCE (something which is
>	apparently sorely lacking in many (most?) PDs) thieves can be easily
>	apprehended.  They are, after all, at the disadvantage.

	Damned strait!  Of course, we should note that a hostage situation
may require an invasion without warning, but it seems that there are more
often situations where a no-knock results in the creation of a hostage
situation.  SWAT teams have their uses, and sadly it seems somebody thinks
it's better PR and headlines and not tactical situations where their
training is useful and necessary.

>	My next door
>	neighbor was robbed this past Friday.  Whoever it was may be back to 
>	hit the rest of us (we're only 5 houses on a little 1 lane country
>	road that is very hidden from the rest of the world.).

	Side note: I do not remember ever having the doors to the house I
lived in prior to college ever being locked.  That's at least 15 years of
never locking.  As a matter of fact, I never even had a key to the place.
I'd say different backgrounds will show different opinions.  If I lived where
you do, chances are my opinions would be as different as our crime rate.

>	Well, if I suddenly find myself on the wrong end of several guns, i.e.
>	I am caught unawares,t hen I have not a wole lot of choice but to
>	cool out and see what's up.  But if I see or hear activity going on 
>	outside that should not be going on, I will arm myself and prepare to
>	let someone have it if such an unfortunate need arises.

	This is exactly what I was looking for!  By all means, prepare to 
defend yourself and your property and loved ones!

>>If it's worth a break-in by police, they
>>most likely have evidence that you're a serious threat to somebody, and must
>>be stopped immediately (I assume the intel people actually do their job).

>	Whoa there!  Do you not remember the old geezer that someone wrote 
>	about a few weeks ago?  Saw a bunch of persons in masks running around
>	his house late at night?  Got his shotgun and, what, KILLED 5 officers?
>	Good for him.  He acted quite properly under the circumstances.  Sorry
>	to the families of the downed cops, but someone did not do their jobs
>	right.  I wonder who will be held accountable for these losses?

	Nobody, especially if it didn't happen shortly before an election.  I
no not remember that posting.  If anybody has it saved, would they mind
mailing it to me?  I too think, "Good for him!" but still feel sorry for
the officers and their families.  The greatest pity is that police and citizens
are being made adversaries by these senseless actions.
  
>	Probably nobody, which will of course leave the same PD fully able and
>	perhaps even likely to make similar mistakes in the future.  Sad.

	I'd hope the officers have the presence of mind to question illegal
orders, and make suggestions for better ways of doing the job.  Back in my
Navy daze, it was drilled into us that the enlisted should offer suggestions
to the officers, and that the officers should listen carefully.  This doesn't
mean you question authority, it means you question the method.  To not do so
means somebody will get hurt or killed, which nobody wants to happen.

>	What if a crook busted my door down?  Would you not say i'd be pert
>	near justified in shooting?  I can't tell who's real and who ain't in
>	a tenth of a second, and so sometimes a person must simply ACT.  When
>	the prima fascia aspect of a situation says "LIFE OR DEATH" and things
>	are hapening quickly, a person is well justified in shooting.  Why
>	should anyone risk death for the sake of some cops who feel they must
>	do the Rambo thing?  That's simply insane.

	Agreed.  What I'm interested in knowing is this: what does it take
to give you reason to hold your fire in this case?  Badges?  Badges and
uniforms?  In my opinion, police not in uniform complete with badge are not
police, just as a person claiming to be an admiral while wearing jogging
shorts isn't an admiral unless personally known to me.  Fat chance there.
I suspect you wouldn't just open up on whatever comes through the door, but
will first try to ID it, and if that ID doesn't match with anything you know
you'll fire.  This sounds reasonable to me.  In fact, it's more reasonable
than the tactics the police would be using here.

>>If nobody
>>opens fire, nobody is hurt and things proceed.  

>	Come on Dan, gimme a break here.  You know damned well that things are
>	never that simple.  In principle you are right, but the real world 
>	fact is that this is by no menas guaranteed to be the case, and when
>	the cops exacerbate an already potentially tough situation by acting
>	like mad idiots, what can you expect but for someone to try to defend
>	themselves?  No one in their right mind is going to roll over for the
>	kill at the hands of strangers, except for Mennonites.

	Agreed, things are never that simple.  I merely wanted to clear up
what I saw as a binary position on your part based on my reading of your
first post on this subject.  I see now that you leave yourself open to
interpreting the situation, which is all I was after.  To make an example,
if a bunch of men in ski masks entered my front door while I happened to be
armed, I'd target them and probably open fire.  If the words, "Police!" are
said, I'd hesitate, but still target.  I hope they would too, given they
are confronted with me pointing a weapon at them.  I see this as a situation
brought about by illegal actions by police Officers (not the cops doing the
job, but those who gave the orders), and I feel some restraint is necessary.
I can prosecute later.  First, I need to exit alive.  Having at most five
shots in any of my weapons, I don't expect to be alive to prosecute if I
open fire first.

>	No knocks are NEVER justified.

	Hostages, weapons of mass destruction like remote-control bombs,
and during confirmed torture/rape/beatings are situations I'd like to
have some leeway in justifying a no-knock on.  Drugs?  Hah!  That war is
a farce, and we all know it.  Never is something I won't agree too, because
I know sometime, someplace, there will be a situation that might call for
it.  The rights of the criminal should not weigh more than those of the
victim, but neither should they weigh less to the police or court.

>>	You've not said a thing about any of these options, and really
>>sound more like you think there's only surrender and fight to the end.
>>There are other means.  Burgulars can keep whatever they can cart away
>>while April and I are holed up.  It can be replaced.  She and I can't.

>	*IF* I feel I can vacate the premises with all family members (that
>	includes my cats) in safety, I will do so.  If I can find a place to 
>	hide where I can properly defend myself, fine.  If I cannot, I will 
>	stand and fight like the maddest devil on earth if it comes to that.
>	I'm not looking to get killed or to harm anyone, but I am also not
>	willing to just sit by and have someone kill me.

	Isn't that all that can be asked of any reasonable person?  That is
all I was asking of you.

<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