From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2 (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<1992Aug18.234015.25204@mtu.edu>
	<viking.714195781@vincent1.iastate.edu>
	<DLB.92Aug24134521@fanny.wash.inmet.com>
	<viking.714708697@vincent1.iastate.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:05:14 GMT

In article <viking.714708697@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu
(Dan Sorenson) writes:

   dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:

   >You know, I think we are dealing with a false dichotomy here.

	   What false dichotomy?  Innocent until proven guilty in a court
   of law.  Prior to that, only suspected if so warranted, but still innocent.
   I made this example specifically because I felt we'd be all too quick to
   scream "But I was justified!" if it happened to us, and seemed all too
   quick to scream "Tony is a murderer" when it happens to an innocent.  My
   original reason for responding was just that it seemed a slippery slope
   from "Tony is guilty!" based on what the media reports to "The woman
   who was being assaulted is guilty of murdering that 350lb man, who was
   really just a teddy bear and only wanted to give her a friendly hug."

	   Perhaps there is no mutual respect in some areas, but in others it
   does exist, and I wish to see it continue.

I think not.  If we await the verdict of a court to discuss any issue,
then we wait forever.  We can discuss the issues involved using the
reported facts as a base.  Corrections are fine; however, dicussing
the advisability of no-knock warrents using the reported facts as a
case study (and other issues) seems fair game.

Now, I know that there were some posts that wholesale condemned Tony
as a person, not as an abstraction; indeed, this is the only name I
have for him, and feel (given my tendancy for formality) in using it.
If you meant to try and exclude these fine; however, the verdict of a
court is not the way to do it.

In the rest of the post (deleted for bandwidth), you indeed discuss
things given the facts as posted.  This is all I was advocating.

   >My best friend is an ex-cop, and a member of the Emergency Response
   >Team (equivalent of SWAT).  He has gone in some doors in his time, and
   >one drug-crazed suspect required seventy-two separate rounds before he
   >stopped coming at an ERT member with a knife.  From his professional
   >point of view, based ONLY upon publicly reported events, this guy
   >should be tried for some form of homicide.

	   From the point of view of whom?  I'd like you to elaborate on
   this, since I'm having a hard time parsing that, and it would also be
   interesting to see just how the media portrayed the incident compared
   to testimony from a man who was there.

Damn.  And again.  It's been a long time since I wrote something this
blatently ambiguous.  My profound apologies.

The "this guy" referred to in the last senatence is the officer who
shot the woman in Washington; who we have been calling Tony.  He gave
no opinion on the Norfolk shooting; or rather, an (implicit) one that
it was indeed justified.

I really am sorry.  Truly bad English.  I am embarrassed beyond
speech.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals