HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty,seattle.general
Subject: Re: SWAT team kills innocent woman in No-Knock raid.
Keywords: SWAT police no-knock raid death
Date: 16 Aug 92 20:49:06 GMT
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<

This is indeed a tradgedy, and someone should pay for it, and I don't
mean monetarily, and this practice should be stopped.

There is one person who should not be punished, IMO, and that is the
SWAT officer who killed the lady.  He, and his fellow officers, went 
to the house with the information that there was an armed and dangerous
suspect inside that they were to apprehend.  In such situations the 
officers are too often in a shoot-or-die situation.  I am certain that
this officer is going to remember and have nightmares about this 
incident for the rest of his life.  Put yourself in his shoes.  He
knows that he _killed_an_innocent_woman!  And no matter how he tries
to reconcile that with his training, orders, and procedures, that 
thought is always going to be with him.

The people at fault were far removed from the action.  The investigators
who decided to act on the tip, the watch commander and other ranking
officials in the law enforcement agencies that let the tips be acted
on without further investigation, and possibly most of all, the 
judges that issued the no-knock warrants on such flimsy evidence.

I think we can all remember cases where the original suspects were 
later found to be innocent.  But there seems to be an attitude in 
the law enforcement agencies and the prosecutors offices that the
first person that becomes a suspect is the guilty party and all
further investigation stops.  I am certain that somebody will say 
that the police don't have the manpower to do all that investigating,
but it seems to me that if they spent more time investigating
they wouldn't be wasting so much time on arresting and prosecuting 
people who turn out to be innocent.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15018 talk.politics.mideast:18783 alt.news-media:838
From: edp@math.zko.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Subject: Re: SWAT team kills innocent woman in No-Knock raid.
Keywords: SWAT police no-knock raid death
Reply-To: edp@math.zko.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:00:01 GMT

In article <bt6xit.j7s@wang.com>, fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald) writes:

>I honestly doubt this.  In Hudson, NH, a couple of years ago, a similar
>thing happened (the police killed the suspect they were looking for in full
>view of his family, but it turned out they were acting on a bad tip and the
>guy was innocent).

Small quantities of marijuana and traces of cocaine were found in Bruce
Wayne Lavoie's apartment in Hudson.  The killing was in the apartment
with the entire family present, but in view only of a small child.  The
officer discharged his firearm upon entering the apartment, allegedly by
accident.  He failed to yell out that the discharge was accidental, as
regulations require.  The gun initially requires around 11 pounds of
pressure on the trigger to fire, but subsequent firings requiring only
about half that if the weapon is not uncocked.  There is conflicting
evidence about angle of discharge, whether a struggle occurred, whether
the initially-sleeping Bruce Lavoie knew what was happening, whether
"Police" was visible on the armor the police were wearing, et cetera.

(Hudson is a neighboring town, and I acquired a copy of the Attorney
General's report, after some resistance and a letter to newspapers
asking why the AG wouldn't provide a copy of a public document.)


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@alien.enet.dec.com
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15266 misc.headlines:5842 sci.econ:7043 talk.politics.misc:41247
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 22 Aug 92 02:02:32 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug21.075707.472@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.001616.3662@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
...
>>         It was supposed to be used to take a bite out of the debt. 
>> Hmmm.  I wonder where those dollars went?
> 
> Are you saying that Ronald Reagan was *wrong* for raising the capital gains tax?

	You're evading the question.  Congress was given a big sack of money,
with which to take a bite out of the debt.  What happed to the money?

	Do the words "pork" and "barrel" make it clearer?

	(And yes, he was wrong to go along with it.)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty,seattle.general
From: fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: SWAT team kills innocent woman in No-Knock raid.
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 17:49:40 GMT
Keywords: SWAT police no-knock raid death

wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks) writes:

> There is one person who should not be punished, IMO, and that is the
> SWAT officer who killed the lady.  He, and his fellow officers, went 
> to the house with the information that there was an armed and dangerous
> suspect inside that they were to apprehend.

And he shot and killed an unarmed woman who was clearly not the suspect
they were looking for.  Even if the cop isn't punished for the act, he
should lose his job for incompetence before he gets a chance to do the same
thing to someone else.  (Or do you want to have someone on the force who's
been known to kill innocent bystanders, and who knows he won't get in
trouble for it?)

> I am certain that
> this officer is going to remember and have nightmares about this 
> incident for the rest of his life.  Put yourself in his shoes.  He
> knows that he _killed_an_innocent_woman!  And no matter how he tries
> to reconcile that with his training, orders, and procedures, that 
> thought is always going to be with him.

I honestly doubt this.  In Hudson, NH, a couple of years ago, a similar
thing happened (the police killed the suspect they were looking for in full
view of his family, but it turned out they were acting on a bad tip and the
guy was innocent).  The cop who pulled the trigger completely rationalized
it, saying that he acted appropriately, felt no guilt for killing an
innocent man, and stayed on the job.

You may be underestimating people's ability for rationalization.  Cops
really believe that the deaths of a few civilians is worth it, this is a
war after all, and the ends justify the means.

-- 
Tom Fitzgerald   Wang Labs       fitz@wang.com   "I went to the universe today;
1-508-967-5278   Lowell MA, USA                   It was closed...."

Xref: sparky alt.activism:15277 soc.culture.latin-america:3190 talk.politics.misc:41262 alt.politics.elections:11276 misc.headlines:5850
From: fulton@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Subject: Re: STUDY: NAFTA TO CAUSE U.S. JOB, INCOME LOSS
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:21:32 GMT

In <1992Aug12.153525.14298@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Bob Hooker) writes:

>But lets say that I am a country that produces rubber very well.  Jobs in
>the rubber production pay like shit,  they are dangerous,  they pollute the
>country side and they do not require that my country educate people.

>I can buy tractors for rubber from a more industrialized country.  And if
>there is a competetive advatage I am better off in the short run buying the
>tractors and keeping my country a rubber producer.  

>The result is I have a poor, polluted, uneducated country. 

And therefore, in the long run, you would have been better off encouraging
production of tractors, or, better yet, allowing the farsighted companies 
in your nation to produce whatever they want.  Since they have a stake in
creating a rich, unpolluted, educated country both for selling and getting
labor, they should help create it.

>Also,  many players in the world don't agree with free trade.  If I have
>few restrictions on imports and am trading with a country which have many, 
>the comparative advantage arguemnet menas nothing.  I lose one industry
>without a increase in another.

I don't really understand this.  Aren't currency exchanges free-floating?
If there's no set rate for currency exchange, then your country's net
import will result in your currency devaluing relative to the other
country's.  This will mean the other country will have less interest in
exporting to you, and bang, you're back to a net balance.  (Note - this
is what I *thought* happened - feel free to correct me.)

ben
fulton@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
will be president for food
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.drugs,alt.society.civil-liberty,seattle.general
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: SWAT team kills innocent woman in No-Knock raid.
Keywords: SWAT police no-knock raid death thugs occupying-army friendly-fire Officer-Friendly Enemies-R-US
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:46:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.215146.17467@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
...
>
>Saw a squib not that long ago from a sociologist who followed some NYC
>police officers from basic training through the first year on the job,
>found that they went in all idealistic and wanting to help people but
>uniformly became cynical and vicious in the process of "learning the
>ropes."
>
>The problem is not that all the drug warriors are vicious control freak
>sociopaths. The problem is that many of them are initially decent
>people who honestly believe they are doing a useful job.
>
>paul

Thsi reminds me of a documentary I saw a few years ago. It was titled
"The Making of a Torturer."

It described the process whereby the Greek military government a few decades
ago converted decent young men in torturers. The process bore some 
similiarities to the Stanly Milgram experiments on torture.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer



Xref: sparky alt.activism:14874 talk.politics.misc:39981
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 13:09:54 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <BtC90H.JEu@news.cso.uiuc.edu> bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman) writes:
> 
> >Nobody is suggesting that there ought to be a quota system or that people with  
> >left-wing leanings should be fired from their media jobs. (Though of course  
> >that its what the left would do if things were otherwise). That is not the  
> >point of the frequent mention of the fact that the establishment mainstream  
> >media are considerably to the left of the general population. 
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
How do you know that? That is an amazing assertion!
 
Steve
  
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15183 alt.news-media:858
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:37:43 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <2A93CC3D.4681@orion.oac.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>
>The point is to make people aware of the fact that if they open one of the  
>better mainstream newspapers like the LA Times or the NY Times or the  
>Washington Post or turn on PBS or CBS and read the 'factual' reports they are  
>very likely reading someone whose allegiance is to the left and who is not  
>afraid to let this influence his reporting and that hence all this information   
>is to be taken cum grano salis.
>
>	Carl Edman

I think this is true of all news.  Whether someone is to the left, right
or similar in political views, I look for a bias.  The biggest warning
flag goes up for _anyone_ who claims to be unbiased for reporting on
any political or otherwise complex subjects.  I would imagine that the
only unbiased reporting is for numerical things like sports scores or
stock quotes, IMHO.  Those who state their bias up-front may be the
most reliable sources available, since its easier to separate the fact
from the opinion.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.news-media
From: bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:45:52 GMT

cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:

>Carl M. Kadie writes
>> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>> 
>> [...]
>> >Every poll I have ever seen (including one I posted by the L.A. Times)
>> >has put the news media considerably to the left of the American public.
>> >Would you like me to repost it or email it to you?
>> [...]
>> 
>> So what do you want quotas? If conservatives are less likely to choose
>> media careers, that is their own fault.

>Nobody is suggesting that there ought to be a quota system or that people with  
>left-wing leanings should be fired from their media jobs. (Though of course  
>that its what the left would do if things were otherwise). That is not the  
>point of the frequent mention of the fact that the establishment mainstream  
>media are considerably to the left of the general population. 

>The point is to make people aware of the fact that if they open one of the  
>better mainstream newspapers like the LA Times or the NY Times or the  
>Washington Post or turn on PBS or CBS and read the 'factual' reports they are  
>very likely reading someone whose allegiance is to the left and who is not  
>afraid to let this influence his reporting and that hence all this information   
>is to be taken cum grano salis.

It is the higher-ups, though, who determine what gets through. What
about the corporate sponsors of the mass med? Are they also leftists?
Look who is paying the bills -- we all know that liberals can be bought.


Brian Redman
(bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)
"Ah yes, Armageddon. I remember it well."
From: Dorothy Morse <dmorse@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Date: 15 Aug 92 10:27 PDT
Subject: SOMALIA! New Free Fax Numbers!
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1296500285:000:1561
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmorse    Aug 15 10:27:00 1992


From: Dorothy Morse <dmorse>
Subject: SOMALIA! New Free Fax Numbers!

/* Written 10:08 am  Aug 15, 1992 by dmorse in cdp:soc.cult.afric */
/* ---------- "SOMALIA! New Free Fax Numbers!" ---------- */
In my preceding post, the second paragraph of the sample message should
read:
"Such massive aid must continue without interruption or lessening
until the Somalian population is out of danger."

IDEA:

When faxing to the Clinton Campaign HQ, try directing your fax to the
attention of Tipper Gore.

Implore her as a mother who has held a vigil beside her own child when
his life was in danger, to take special notice of the mothers and children
of Somalia, and not to turn her attention away from them until the danger is
over.

Whatever opinions are about Tipper Gore's anti-rock-lyrics campaign, there
is no question that she is seriously concerned for the welfare of children.

The appeal to Tipper Gore could also be made to Al Gore, who has spoken
about how his priorities changed when his 6-year-old son was hit by
a car. Both parents spent 30 days and nights by the child's bedside.
The boy has now made a good recovery.

Or you could direct the fax to Al and Tipper Gore together, as parents.


Similarly, I believe Hilary Clinton is on the Board of the Children's Defense
Fund.  Ask her to take the children of Somalia under her special notice and
again not to turn her attention away from them until the danger is over.

Thanks.
(Note: obviously, when faxing Hilary Clinton or Tipper Gore, as mothers,
a deeply serious and courteous tone is in order>)

Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution: Part zero: highlights
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:59:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.054732.23693@meteor.wisc.edu> stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu  
(Stephen Jascourt) writes:
> But it
> is understandable how Brett and others misunderstood socialism, because of
> the popular mythology surrounding that term.

Gee, its amazing how many people 'misunderstood the term.  Gailbraith, G.B.Shaw  
to name two socialists who thought the Eastern Block was wonderful.

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective  
or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and  
distribution of goods. (Websters) I guess they were taken in by the mythology  
too. :-)

You can argue that your political theory of socialism is not the same as the  
implementation, but that doesn't change the definition.

--
Barry Wise

Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: reagan
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:50:31 GMT


In article <1992Aug18.220719.8243@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
|> cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> >pat buchannan, what a man -- i couldn't have said 
|> >anything any more damming about the republican party than what came out of 
|> >that mans mouth. whose side is he on anyway? i loved the homophobia bit, the 
|> >anti-feminisim bit, the anti black bit.
|> 
|> Hmmm... I guess you were watching a different convention. Why don't you
|> quote the relevent parts of Buchanan's speech which were "homophobic",
|> "anti-feminist", or "anti-black".

You're joking, right?

-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15039 alt.desert-storm:1715
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum)
Subject: Re: Age of Consent
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:39:58 PDT

In article <fulton.713720588@copper>, on 13 Aug 1992 15:43:08 GMT,
fulton@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:

>
>In <1992Aug12.140306.6303@fig.citib.com> glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
>
>>So an emancipated "child" could choose to have a sexual
>>relationship with an adult?
>
>>This stuff is not far off of what NAMBLA proposes.  Perhaps
>>Cr*m*r will now start choose to rave about how libertarians
>>advocate child molestation?
>
>Big 'L' Libertarians, please.  I support 90% of the Libertarian platform,
>but the children's rights plank is way off base.  Those who are incapable
>of personal responsibility need protection.
>
If you haven't actually done so, I recommend you read the actual text of
the Libertarian Party platform plank on children's rights rather than
relying on my excerpts for the purpose of answering a specific question.

For children who remain in their parents' custody, or the custody of
other guardians, there is no difference between protection of children
wrt sexual relations with adults between libertarian and non-libertarian
systems. Children are required to live according to the rules set up by
their parents, and child abuse is always forbidden. Presumably, the
parents would not consent to their children having sex with adults.

>ben "libertarian"
>fulton@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
>will be president for food
>
    ====Jack====
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE: "Where Was George?" (part 1)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:39:56 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	Not in Paris, like you said he was.

	But H*r*l, where were you on that weekend?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution: Part zero: highlights
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:30:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: desire.1992Aug20.133017.3653
 <1992Aug19.003724.6521@meteor.wisc.edu> <1992Aug19.020831.3593@desire.wright.edu> <1992Aug20.054732.23693@meteor.wisc.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug20.054732.23693@meteor.wisc.edu>, stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Stephen Jascourt) writes:
...
> Real socialists were saying all along, for many decades now, that those
> countries were *not* socialist. The term socialism is filled with mythologies
> created by both the western capitalist states and the Soviet-block state
> capitalists. The Soviet block countries did not empower the masses nor did
> it make decisions for their benefit and well-being. Its policies were not one
> of socialism. An centralized economy controlled by the state is not what
> socialism is all about. Socialism is about  determining production and modes
> of production according to the needs of society with fair and equal input by
> all members of that society, and in a practical sense would work best with 
> most things determined on a highly decentralized organization so that people
> have the most control over things that affect them most directly. But it
> is understandable how Brett and others misunderstood socialism, because of
> the popular mythology surrounding that term.

	Sure I understand what socialism is.  It's whatever countries around
the world aren't.  That way whenever someone points out the tragedies befalling
socialist economies, TRUE BELIEVERS can say "but that's not socialism".

	Fine, REAL CAPITALISM has never been tried.  It ensures wealth and
prosperity to all who embrace it.  Those who accept capitalism as their saviour
will be sent to heaven upon death.  Capitalism is utopia.

	Believe, believe, believe!

>>	But they called themselves socialist.  They named themselves socialist. 
>>They followed socialist precepts.  They quacked like socialists.
> 
> They did not follow socialist precepts. As for quacking, I'll duck such a
> foul remark. :) :)

	The question still remains, if socialism is so good, why hasn't anyone
tried it, and why wouldn't there be at least one socialist paradise by now?

>>	Oh--all this backpeddling would be just a wee bit more believable if it
>>had been done during the heydays of the xUSSR, instead of after the coup
>>failed.
> 
> It was, but nobody was listening, and the volume is proportional to what the
> press will print, and the press didn't want to undermine the popular mythology.

	Was there a single major organization that labeled itself socialist
that rejected the xUSSR and its ilk?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!