HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 29 Aug 92 22:18:41 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <p56ui54@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.180451.5349@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:

>>First off--how fast do any of us think under pressure?  If someone
>>is--or appears to be--attacking you, you're liable to use what is
>>immediately at hand to defend/counterattack.  Sure--he had mace.  But
>>did he have *time* to think about using it, and then pulling it out?

>However, this is what we pay police for.  They should be trained to do
>this.  When he shot her, even if it was an accident, it was his fault
>and proceedings should be brought up to see if he is an appropriate officer.

Actually, as I understand it, police in deadly situations are trained
to shoot to kill.  Things like mace are used when possible, but that's
more likely to be when the offender is unarmed or armed only witha
blunt instrument then when she has a machete.

>>Secondly--the police I know freely admit that there is a general
>>policy that the police are to act in a way that discourages attempts
>>to use force, and *especially*, to escalate force against officers.
>>The way this is done is to immediately escalate to what is hoped is an
>>unacceptable (to the person being dealt with) level.  This means you
>>answer knives with guns. 

>However, the answer should not be "shoot to kill."  Again, police should be
>trained to do otherwise.  If they do not, they should be investigated and
>if found to have used unnecessary force leading to death, should be tried for
>murder.

Well, I guess the key word here is 'unnecessary'.  I think that most
states consider an attack with a machete to justify deadly force.

>>Third--I think one of the biggest problems facing the police today is
>>*fear*.  The cops are far more afraid of the crooks, than the crooks
>>are of the cops.  This is responsible (I think) for some of the cases
>>the public believes to be bizarre and unwarranted levels of force on
>>the part of the police force--and why the police have so much trouble
>>understanding the public outcry at such incidents.

>I will not accept that the cop was afraid and therefore he had the right
>to shoot and kill a woman who was armed with a machete. 

I don't get it.  Why shouldn't he be afraid of a woman with a machete?
You think that just because she was half his size she couldn't have
shortend him by six inches?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre
From: jimh@pacdata.uucp (Jim Harkins)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: Pacific Data Products
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:29:10 GMT

In article <yvjndkn.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>Thus spake jimh@pacdata.uucp (Jim Harkins): 

>	But Jim, your post makes it clear that you ARE the type of nutcase
>who should never be permitted to own a firearm!

>	You are perfectly correct in saying it would be stupid to permit
>someone to take your gun and shoot you with it - which is an excellent
>reason NOT to have a gun in the first place. You say you have a gun because
>someone was coming in your window one morning. Sounds to me like you are
>still alive, and since you didn't have a gun at the time, that person is as
>well.  I wonder if EITHER of you would be if you HAD possessed a gun at the
>time?

Rick, do you shave your head so it fits into your ass easier?  I am not
about to abrogate my right to defend myself if someone comes into my house
in the middle of the night.  Have you ever had a break in?  I have, it's
not fun.  In fact, it's downright terrifying.  You don't want me to shoot
you?  Fine, don't break into my house when I'm home.  It's that simple.
If you do break into my house and find yourself staring down the barrel of
my gun then simply turn around and walk out the front door.  I'm not out
to shoot someone, I'm out to defend myself.

Have you ever fallen down a flight of stairs?  If so, assuming you survived
with no major injuries are you going to go fall down more stairs?  After all,
you did survive.  Why would the next fall be any worse than the last one?
Aren't all falls the same?  Or maybe we should just outlaw stairs?  Hell,
lets go for the whole enchilada and outlaw gravity!  That would solve all
this countries problems.
-- 
Lawyers Creed:  What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Harkins                         [ucsd|uunet]!pacdata!jim
Pacific Data Products               jim@pacdata.com
--------------------------------------------------------------

Xref: sparky ba.politics:4870 ca.politics:7204 talk.politics.misc:42685 talk.bizarre:27900
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:01:35 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <64791@cup.portal.com>, lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman) writes:
> actually, the filth shot three times.
> guess she didn't crumple fast enough for his taste.
> 
> cunt.
>  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | lord snooty @the giant | i'm told his address has been circulated tho'   |
> | poisoned electric head |              andrew_-_palfreyman@cup.portal.com |
>  --------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't know what's involved with using a handgun for self-defense.
They are only so-so for reliably incapacitating an attacker.  Multiple
shots are not appropriate, but necessary -- especially against an
attacker with a machete at close range.  Even when effective, it
can take many seconds to make an attacker non-lethal.

This is what I expect though from liberals -- trying to justify
a clearly crazy person with a deadly weapon.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:42:46 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu

In article <athos-200892095115@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>Certain congressional leaders ADMITTED that they were NOT going to allow
>Bush any legislative victory since they smelled blood in the water.  On
>PBS, I watched as one senator (I can't remember his name) even admitted
>that even if George Bush put forth the Clinton play, they WOULD not pass it
>just to spite him.  It is, after all, an election year.

They could only get away with it because Bush is a weak, ineffective
president.  If Congress attempted to play those kinds of games with
Ronald Reagan, Reagan would simply go on national TV and get the public to
put pressure on Congress until it moved.  The blood is in the water
because people want a change.

>So, Oh Great One, what would YOU do if the Congress would not pass your
>plan?  Attack with the Army?  There's not much you CAN do other than
>complain about it.

This is only a hypothetical question, since it's not true that Congress
has refused to pass Bush's "plan" because Bush does not have a plan.  But
let's say this is what has happened.

If Congress refuses to pass your plan A, then you come up with a plan B
that can be passed -- you sell it to Congress and you sell it to the people.
The American system is a system of checks and balances.  It requires a
President with the ability to work with a sometimes hostile Congress.
Reagan had that ability, even though he was a disaster in many ways.  Bush
does not have this ability.  Bush has been much more successful in foreign
policy than domestic policy because this ability isn't needed to conduct
foreign policy under the American system.

>Or, if you're smart, you do what Wilson has done in
>California.  You hold them hostage, veto everything, and refuse to accept
>any compromise.  

That's not smart.  Wilson's intransigence has ruined California's credit
rating; this has already cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in
extra interest payments on bonds, and will cost billions in the future.
And for what -- out-machoing Willie Brown?  I say a curse on both their
houses, and I expect that many of the voters will say the same thing.
I predict that Wilson will lose his re-election bid in 1994.

There's a reason why voters split their tickets, voting for Democratic
legislators and Republican executives.  They WANT divided government, with
each guy keeping an eye on the other.  They don't want a president or
a congress to have carte blanche power to do whatever they want.  We
don't pick presidents and governors to be dictators.



--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:57:56 GMT

In article <p94pang@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
> In article <9vhn=dh.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> 
> >Come come, Michael. She was SMALLER than the cop. And while she may have been
> >armed, she was armed with an inferior weapon. You know, the copy should
> >have just "disarmed" her. Why, it's so easy, next time we'll send Jeff!
> 
> I cannot figure out why you are so set on having the cops kill someone
> when she could have been subdued?  Do we train cops to kill rather than
> subdue?  If so, this needs to change. 

I am not 'set on having the cops kill'.  I can, however, understand
why it happens in cases like this, and I'd rather (on the whole) have
a live cop in this instance than a dead one.  

	--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,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:05:59 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics

In article <1992Aug30.051305.1235@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
> In article <11973@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >She had a machete.  That's adequate.  Policemen are badly injured 
> 
> And he had a PK-24. That's a metal baton with a side handle, designed
> to be used for blocking blows, among other things. You grip the side
> handle in your fist and the entire length of your arm is protected
> by the metal baton. Blocking a machete with that ought to be a piece
> of cake.

Aside from the time it would take to bet the baton out (I know *many*
people that can kill you with a machete long before that would
happen), there is the issue of just how effective the baton would be.
There is, for instance, nothing to protect the hands on such a baton.
How many fingers do you want the cop to lose?

	--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
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4799 alt.activism:15485 ca.politics:7081 talk.politics.misc:42135
From: Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 15:02:42 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

A 19 year old nutcase was shot after she attacked a cop with a machete
after breaking into the Chancellor's home in Berkeley. She had left a note
saying that "they're probably going to shoot me, tell my friends goodbye,
this is to defend People's Park against the University".

Now her friends are raising hell in people's Park, upholding this
kook as a martyr. She had a record of arrests, and had plans to steal
an MX warheard and blow up Washington or something like that. What do
all you activist have to say about this character?  I thought this
sort of madness went out with the 60's. A haven for drug dealers and
economically incompetent is not a good reason to give one's life.

Related - other activists are calling for everyone to burn down LA
again if the attackers of Reginald Denny are convicted, calling Denny's
blood the justified reaction to oppression.

Anybody out there agree with these nutcases?
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 17:02:41 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug29.221841.17843@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
    >In article <p56ui54@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff
    >Dauber) writes:
    >>However, this is what we pay police for. They should be
    >>trained to do this. When he shot her, even if it was an
    >>accident, it was his fault and proceedings should be brought
    >>up to see if he is an appropriate officer.
    >...
    >I don't get it. Why shouldn't he be afraid of a woman
    >with a machete? You think that just because she was half his
    >size she couldn't have shortend him by six inches? --

Come come, Michael. She was SMALLER than the cop. And while she may have been
armed, she was armed with an inferior weapon. You know, the copy should
have just "disarmed" her. Why, it's so easy, next time we'll send Jeff!

Of course, we should have done things like this YEARS ago.

I mean, just think of all the execssive force we used against the
Japanese troops in WWII.

They were, on the average much much smaller than us (5' 4"), had inferior
weapons, poor diets ...


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: Political Correctness (was Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective))
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:48:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.183256.20633@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>Why 'wow'?  Dauber seems to define evil as anyone who points out facts
>he doesn't like.  I certainly meet that definition.

Don't you dare speak for me, moron....


My definition of evil?

1. evil \'e--v*l\ \-v*(l)-le-\ aj or evil.er or evil.ler;  or evil.est;  or 
   evil.lest [ME, fr. OE yfel; akin to OHG ubil evil] 1a: not good morally : 
   WICKED 1b: arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct archaic  
   2a: INFERIOR 2b: causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE 2c: 
   DISAGREEABLE 3a: causing harm : PERNICIOUS 3b: marked by misfortune : 
   UNLUCKY archaic  - evil av
2. evil \.e--v*l-'du:-*r\ \-'du:-in\ n 1: something that brings sorrow, 
   distress, or calamity 2a: the fact of suffering and misfortune 2b: a cosmic 
   evil force - evil.do.er n



I tend to think you fall in definition 2, option number 1.

FWA
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Isenberg
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 12:31:07 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>  I'm really peaved at AB 3593 which has to do with forcing the UC system 
>to pump out general practitioners.   I saw him on TV this morning and it 
>really annoyed me.  I'de like to send him a nice juicy note, but I'n not 
>sure about his address.  Could someone plase email me the address of 
>Assembly'man' isenberg (california assembly).  I can't believe his 
>arrogance to the whole situation.  I'm sorry if I'm not making any sense, 
>but I'm pissed.  
>
>Thank you
>reza.naima@uttsbbs.uucp

What we have here is the guaranteed ultimate consequence of "progressive"
socialism turning every institution in its path over to the State.  The
only way to prevent the political elite (politicians, bureaucrats,
staffers, lobbyists, party bosses, and the "aristocracy of pull") from
micromanaging what is none of their business is: privatization.

Of course, even when an institution is privately "owned", Big Brother can
still pull on the puppet strings by confiscating people's earnings and then
granting it back with conditions.  For example, try getting a government
grant for environmental research unless the bureaucrats trust you to confirm
the apocalyptic scare stories (ozone depletion, global warming, acid rain,
loss of wetlands) that will PROFIT THEIR CAREERS.  Can you say,
"Lysenkoism"?  No doubt this suits the "progressives" just fine; having
strangled the economy with taxes and regulatory bureaucracies, their next
agenda is to build an eco-apocalyptic police state.  But their chickens
have come home to roost now that right-wing schmucks (Bush et al.) grip
the levers of power that they (the "progressives") have assiduously
constructed since the turn of the century.  With Stanford University
totally dependant (30 cents on the dollar of gross revenue) on the
Federal Government, the War on Some Politically Incorrect Drugs can
intimidate the university into firing Stuart Reges without so much as
working up a sweat.  Shades of the dismissal of Jewish professors in the
early years of the Third Reich.  And much of the power grabbed by Hitler
was LEGALLY his for the taking under the Weimar Constitution written
largely by the SOCIAL DEMOCRATS.

Thank you, Progressive Movement.  Stuart Reges got shafted for YOUR SINS.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4861 alt.activism:15632 ca.politics:7194 talk.politics.misc:42660
From: bruce@godzilla.swdc.stratus.com (Bruce Overby)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:19:14 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., San Jose, CA

In article <64780@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
>... the cop had used excessive force in the past ..
>
>No sir, the article I saw in the Chronicle said that the oficer
>(his name was Chew, so that makes him an Asian-American officer
>defending an Asian-American family against a Caucasian goofball)
>had been shot 3 times by a mugger the year before. If somebody

Two points here, Arthur: 1. Projecting your fixation with race
onto this officer adds nothing to this discourse. (Read, just
because you're a racist, don't assume all Asians are.)
2. Does HuLogic(tm) dictate that because this officer was shot,
from that day forward, he is granted the right to shoot without
thinking first?

>lunges at you with a machete, and you are armed with nothing
>but a handgun, what do you do?
>

I am not familiar with the art of policing, but I would be
willing to bet money that if this officer were "armed with
nothing but a handgun," he was breaking some regulation.

>Like I said, if this girl is a total nutcase, and all the other
>park activists are rallying to her case, aren't they nutcases too?
>Aren't most 60's activists willing to blow stuff up kookoos?

Read up on your recent American history, Arthur. There were,
during the 60s, hundreds of thousands of people who, by today's
standards, would be called "activists." There were perhaps a
few hundred who demonstrated that they were "willing to blow
stuff up."

And just *who* are you calling "kookoos"?

-------------------------------------------------
Bruce Overby
Stratus Computer, Inc.
San Jose, CA


"Get at dem beans!"  -- Hoss Cartwright

My opinions may not reflect those of my employer.
--------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: QueerNet
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 06:14:20 GMT

In article <6zjnvfn.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.150708.22648@queernet.org> rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
>    >In article <1992Aug31.221606.20561@pbhya.PacBell.COM>
>    >whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>    >>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.
>    >>
>    >Why? I feel far safer in my neighborhood when the "crazies
>    >and drug dealers" are on the streets than when the cops
>    >are...
>Ah, Roger, if you did not exist, we would have to invent you. But even
>then, they'd accuse of malicious fiction. Sigh ...

Of course, most of the residents of my neighborhood would agree with me.
But of course, you're convinced that's "malicious fiction" as well...
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
From: terry@netcom.com (Terrence Craig)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:46:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

>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?

As many as it takes.  Their job is to protect the public even at the cost
of their own lives. Rosebud was part of the public.  If the police are not 
willing or are incapable of doing this they should find other employment.

One other point the officer involved had already been thrown off one police 
force for excessive force.  How do you justify the fact that he is still in
the profession.

>
>	--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

Terence.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4946 ca.politics:7318
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:05:09 GMT
Organization: QueerNet

In article <!3hnn+-.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>Why are you so cocerned with the criminal, and so little concerned with the
>victim?

Concern for an empty house?  What should I worry about, its poor property
values dropping?
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5007 ca.politics:7399 talk.politics.misc:43442