From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:16:06 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <p98booc@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
> In article <xzhnmzg.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> >In article <p94l0k8@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
> The cops
> evacuated the house, so they clearly knew they were dealing with a dangerous
> person.  What is there excuse for being unprepared?

The police knew they had an intruder (remember the alarm?).  The
question is--from *just* that information, what would you do?  Isn't
the first step to see if you can get everybody else out of the house?
Safely?  *Then* search for the intruder--identity, motives, skills,
weapons unknown?  

What *assumptions* would *you* make?  Bearing in mind that the wrong
assumptions and police officers will die?  People you're responsible
for, and whose colleague you have to continue to work with . . .

> >My three summers spent working in a mental hospital were as a big strong
> >person to grab and subdue violent people. I think small people were the
> >worst -- very hard to grab, very agile and so on.
> 
> However, in emergency settings, the nurses tackle the people.  The security
> people are bad news, and tend to hurt the patients.

Patients *they*are*familiar*with*.  Ones that may or may not be armed.
In familiar places, with lots of back up handy.  And those nurse get
badly hurt at times, too.

> If the cops did not kill so many people where it was unnecessary, they
> might have more support.

Let me know when you figure out a way to get all the crazies and drug
dealers off the streets and keep 'em off--with or without weapons.

> Here is my challenge.  Given the facts of the situation (ie, they knew
> this woman was dangerous, since they had evacuated the house.  They knew
> she was there so they could have had their weapons out.  They should be
> trained to handle dangerous people without killing them, at least they
> should be...)  what excuse did they have for killing this woman?

Why do I get the feeling that you'd walk into a dark house with an
unknown, potentially armed, potentially crazy, potentially agressive
unknown there and expect to have time to analyze everything you meet
and calmly decide on which (if any) weapon and level of force to use?

The director doesn't yell "Cut!" if you make the wrong choice and make
you do it over again.  This isn't a video game, movie or television
show.  That cop wound up in a me-or-her situation.

I agree that it is possible that the seach *might* have been carried
out differently--but that doesn't guarantee any better outcome.

> The problem is, cops in this country have decided that the way to go
> about law enforcement is by shooting people.  And because people like you
> are willing to say "they had no choice" they can continue killing people...

How many dead cops and their widows are you willing to expalin your
theories to?

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Newsgroups: ba.politics