From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 3
Date: 23 Aug 92 21:23:57 GMT

bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:
> Last year there was an armed robbery in which at least one person,
> security guard type I think, was killed.  The robbers disappeared and
> the investigation turned up nothing.  This was a fairly nasty hot potato
> for the local police departments.
> 
> A few weeks ago a previously reliable informant gave the police the
> identities of all four individuals.  [...]
> 
> Actually, it was four warrants.  All four individuals were allegedly in
> different locations.  Simultaneous arrests were planned in order to
> reduce the chance of them warning each other and escaping.  [...]
> 
> All the arrests went well, except the one.  In this case the police KNEW
> that there were children in the house.  The reason that they went in
> quickly was because they were worried that the 'bad guy' might try to
> use the children as hostages, and it was decided that with the
> information that they had been able to obtain, this was the safest path
> for everybody.
> 
> Tony had just crashed through a glass door.  For some reason I'm not
> real clear on, the lighting was not good.  He located the children.
> Suddenly there was a commotion, and an indistinct figure came suddenly
> into the room, towards the children.  Tony's mp5 discharged a single
> bullet, hitting the figure in the throat, killing her.
> 
> It turned out that the 'fink' had some sort of grudge against these
> people and chose that time to turn from a reliable source into an
> a**hole.
> 
> A police review judged that Tony's action was not criminal.
> 
> A coroners inquest, in a split decision agreed.
> 
> Tony is restored to active duty.

The Event:
---------

Facts:
    1.	Since the crime took place a year ago and there had not
	been a security guard killing spree in the meantime,  it is
	obvious the suspects could not be considered an immediate
	threat to society.
    2.	Since at least one of the children belonged to suspect
	the police should have not assumed the children were in
	immediate danger.
    3.  Since the police did know there were children present they
        should have known there were other non-suspects present
        (in particular the wife) and, debatedly, they should have
        known that the suspect was not home.
    4.  The only reason for the arrests was by tip from 'reliable
    	source'; no other follow through was done, even simple
    	obvious checks such as: was the suspect at work during
    	the robbery.
        
Given the above a no-knock raid was not even remotely justified.  The
police should have waited until all suspects could be arrested
simultaneously without endangering anybody.  Heads should roll for
ordering an arrest at a time that endangered innocent children when it
was unnessary.

Tony's Actions:
--------------

If I,  by mistake,  turned my car onto the sidewalk and killed
pedestrians I would not, nor would I expect to,  be forgiven because
"it's just a horrible mistake".

Tony shot a shadow.   It could have been a fellow officer,  it could
have been another child,  it was in fact a concerned and frightened
mother.  No one is ever justified in shooting a shadow;  it can't
be a 'mistake' since it required an act on Tony's part for the gun
to go off.

> Basically, most of the posts I've seen fall into one of three
> categories.
> 
> 2) There are a lot of armchair cowboys out there who think that these
> things are always clear cut and that the bad guys always are well lit
> and carry signs, and that any mistake in the part of the police is
> criminal.
> 
> 3) Civil rights folks who are outraged over a warrant being issued in
> the first place.

Well I guess I fall into both catagories.  I resent being called an
'armchair cowboy' by the way.  

The fact that the criminals are not clearly distinct from the bad
guys are what rights are all about.  The police do not have the right
to decide that somebody is a bad guy without clear proof of that.
A shadowy figure who may or not be a SUSPECT is clearly not grounds
to assume the shadowy figure is an immediate threat to self or others.

Perhaps if everybody serving a warrant was required to attend the
actual request and granting of the warrant there would be a lot
less of this kind of crap.  The bonus is we would know Tony was
a least guilty of participating in an illegal raid.

> I suppose I belong to the last group to some extent.  I don't think that
> it is fair that a person can become trusted enough by the police to get
> a swat type raid pulled on somebody.  In fact this quite pisses me off.

Heh there's some hope for you yet :-)

> Still, you have to remember that the persons that the police thought
> they were apprehending where murderers and robbers.

Sigh.  The police should have hought they were apprehending a SUSPECTED
murderer and robber that was living with  with his totally innocent
wife and kids.  The fact that the looked upon the suspect as already
guilty is a large part of why Tony ended up shooting somebody.

> Not the sort of
> people I'd like left running around loose longer than they have to.

A suspected Jeffery Dalmer is somebody you don't like left running
around loose.   A suspect from a single murder over a year ago can
be allowed out just a little longer so the police can ensure that
no innocents are endangered and that the evidence against them is
strong.

> As nearly as I have been able to tell, all the officials acted in
> good faith, and nobody, including Tony was negligent.

Hmm.  I don't think there was sufficient evidence for a warrant.
The police didn't do any of their homework and woman is dead
directly due to this.

> Nobody wanted that and nobody planned it that
> way.  Is arbitrarily signaling out one person to hold responsible any
> fairer?

No,  they are all guilty of negligence because it was an illegal raid.
The fact that is was Tony who actually pulled the trigger doesn't
really make him any more or less guilty.

> Actually parsing this has been somewhat of a problem for me.  Each step
> along the way, investigation, warrant, raid, etc. seems to make pretty
> good sense.

What?  The could have phoned his employer and find out if he was at
work on the day in question.   They could have staked out his house
for a couple of days to make sure the man was even home.  None
of this makes good sense.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns