From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 02:12:33 GMT

	I really have to learn to explain myself better.  I am always
amazed at the diversity of opinion, and experiences, the net has to
offer, and I often forget mine are different from others.  Thus:

In <3154@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:

>viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>You are missing a critical difference Dan:

>Soldiers deal with the enemy.
>Police officers deal with SUSPECTS.
>Soldiers kill or disable the enemy as quickly and as efficiently as
>they can.  Soldiers can assume anybody in a enemy emplacement is,
>in fact, an enemy.

	As may cops, when one starts talking about house-to-house
fighting or any place where civilians may be, along with soldiers.
There were an awful lot of civilian deaths in the wars since World
War I, and I suspect this is due to civilians and soldiers being in
the same place.  One is obviously a non-combatant, but can we
reasonably expect the cop, or the soldier, to make an accurrate
evaluation 100% of the time?  Just like the toy gun you refer to
below, if people are shooting at you everybody looks like a target.
Police deal with suspects, I agree.  I figure there is no reason to
draw a weapon at a routine traffic stop, but when attempting to
arrest a person charged with a crime that shows the suspect is armed
and dangerous, is it not reasonable to act as if the suspect were
armed and dangerous, rather than just a harmless person who will
willingly come along?  I'm trying to balance the job the police do
with how I would like to handle the situation, and be handled, and I
find that prudence is the best thing for all concerned.  A cop who
has a gun drawn and perhaps aimed at me, but without a finger on
the trigger (I assume a competent cop here) frightens me less than
the idiot who waves a gun around at the range, and I can hardly
fault the officer if the charge he is arresting me on is murder
or armed robbery.  Can you?

>Police arrest suspects for trial and defend themselves if the suspects
>prove dangerous.  Police officers don't get to assume anybody is
>dangerous,  that must be proved by the suspect.  Police officers can't
>assume everybody in a residence is a suspect.  Since an unarmed women
>gathering up children presents no immediate danger the officer should
>go to jail for a long time.

	The details of the situation are not known to us, and I am
highly torqued that no trial or review will be held to make the
facts known.  Still, I presented no danger when the screw in my
ankle set of the airport metal detector.  I was unarmed.  The police
did draw guns, but also relaxed and secured them when it became clear
I was not a threat.  Why do I think this proper?  The place was
Washington D.C. and the time was three days after the start of the
ground war in Iraq.  In the same situation, I would have acted in a
similar manner.  Likewise, anybody breaking into my house is met with
a shotgun, and I don't put it down until I am certain they are either
unarmed and leaving, or somebody I know and trust enough to do so.  I
cannot fault police if they believe what they are told and act in a
manner that protects themselves.  Going in guns drawn hurts nobody,
but might save an officer if the suspect draws a weapon.  At this point,
is the suspect still to be considered harmless?  Note that I do not
think guns drawn means finger on the trigger and ready to blast away,
but I do figure the cops can protect themselves just as I can.

>Any police officer who is told 'building A contains people who wish
>to kill him' and acts accordingly is breaking the law.  The police
>are not soldiers and are NOT executioners.  Police officers arrest
>suspects for trial and only get to defend themselves if in clear
>and present danger.

	Could you elaborate on this?  I assume a clear and present
danger is already given if the occupants are known to be killers, or
to have exchanged fire with police forces.  In such an instance, I
cannot fault an officer who enters with weapon ready.  I can fault the
officer if he just starts shooting people without regard to the threat
they might pose (unarmed, asleep, whatever), but who can fault a person
for being ready for a situation that might not ever happen?

>> The police have to
>> try to protect their own lives and the lives of the citizen, and it is
>> a certainty that there will be screw-ups.

>Yes there will be screw-ups.
>Acceptable screw-ups include:
>    shooting somebody who has a toy gun
>    
>Unacceptable screw-ups include:
>    shooting somebody by 'accidentally' pulling the trigger
>    shooting somebody when the officer 'trips' and his gun goes off

	I agree.  Prudence means not only being prepared to use your
weapon, it means being prepared to not use it if the situation doesn't
require such force.

>> If I were in Vietnam and saw a
>> person in black pajamas running towards me, am I justified in shooting?

>Maybe.  But is this moot.
>Is a police officer on the beat in Hometown, USA justified in shooting
>somebody running towards him without even identifing himself first.
>(Good thing police don't hang out near jogging trails!!!)

	Of course not, but is the officer justified in clearing his
sidearm from the holster "just in case?"  I am assumming that the
officer has some feeling that this jogger is really dangerous and
can justify drawing the weapon.  Most of the time the jogger doesn't
merit a second look, but if he does, why is it wrong to draw a weapon
and be prepared?  It doesn't mean he has to use it if he is wrong.
If the officer can justify the drawing of his weapon, I am willing
to bet he has a darn good reason, even if that reason is just a
feeling.  Intuition need not be quantative in this instance.  Now
I grant this scenario doesn't happen very often, and is not the
best one to consider, but what's the difference between a bank
robber and a customer?  Should the bank guard notice something
"funny" about the "suspected" customer, is he not justified in
being prepared?  Releasing the safety strap, or drawing the weapon,
should not be done just because one customer looks nervous.  But,
intuition may say something more, and not being in that position
and knowing what was felt, I'm willing to give the police the same
leeway I expect when I find somebody strange prowling around my
house at night.  He may be looking for a lost dog, but I'm a fool
to not prepare and be ready for him to be Public Enemy #1.

>> I think cops face the same uncertainty, and while I don't like
>> it when they screw up, the killer with the 9mm in his pants need not
>> kill a cop before others are justified in opening fire.

>WHAT!  He needs to a LEAST attempt to draw the gun before they are
>justified.  I might go so far as to consider continued refusal to lie
>down valid.

	Sorry, I wasn't clear here.  We had an incident where an armed
robber was met by a squad of police upon exiting the store.  He pointed
the gun at the police, and the police opened fire.  The robber did not
get the first shot, so might not have been actually wishing to shoot the
police, but the police never gave him that chance.  I have no problems
with this.  Thus, no cop needed to be shot or killed before the police
were justified in opening fire.  I do, however, require a damn good
reason for opening fire, and pointing a gun at a cop is one of them.
My spologies for not making this more clear.

>> Just the sight
>> of the weapon, or even the bulge, is enough to justify drawing and
>> aiming weapons in my opinion.  Note I didn't say "fire," but I trust
>> you see why I can equate the two occupations in this day and age.

>Holy shit!  I hope you never get to be a police chief.  I can just
>see your officers drawing and aiming at anybody with a colotomy
>bag or carrying a baseball bat.
>What exactly do you mean by 'this day and age'?
>The age of the war on drugs and the Drug Enforcement Warriors?

	Crime is on the increase, and violent crime is much higher
than it was just ten years ago.  In some cities, it is quite
literally a war zone in some areas.  I don't particularly care what
the socio-economic reasons are for purposes of this discussion, but
the fact stands on its own.  Now then, again I was not entirely
clear in my assumptions.  I refer you to the anecdote above where I
was in a Washington D.C airport.  Had I a bulge in my pants that was
likely a gun, would it not have been entirely appropriate for the
police to draw guns, aim them, and remove me from the area?  I would
think it so, given the situation.  Were I jogging, no it would not
be.  I carry a baseball bat to and from the field, and I don't
deserve a second look.  If I am carrying one in a crowd that happens
to be in Chicago in 1967 during the Democratic National Convention,
isn't it reasonable for the officer to think me a threat?

	I don't care if I am thought of as a threat were I actually a
murderer or really a US Marshall carrying legally.  In each instance
I would expect the police to think of me as a threat and to prepare
themselves.  That might mean drawing weapons, and even aiming them,
but until I draw my own they shall not open fire.  My point is that
I don't think it fair to expect police to wait until they are fired
upon, or assaulted, before being able to prepare for a defense.  I
draw the line where everybody is a threat until proven otherwise, but
I hope you can see the distinction.  No suspicion, no action.  If
I act suspicious, it doesn't harm me for the police to prepare to
defend against me.  I do the same thing, and I've not shot anybody
yet unintentionally.

	Each situation given justification for different actions.  When
I run tresspassers off my land during deer season, am I justified in
having a sniper backing me up?  I think so.  Are the police?  I think
they are, because I won't deny them what I think a prudent defense.
I don't think my sniper should fire unless I am under attack, and
likewise the police, but to disallow them the opportunity to prepare
strikes me as holding them up to a light we cannot reach, and to also
imperil them in the name of our fear they might over-react.  Yes,
they do screw up.  So do otherwise law-abiding gun owners.  I only
wish to give police the same benefit of the doubt that I wish for
myself, that being that I am competent with a firearm and use it only
in situation I feel it is called for.

	Again, I apologize for not making myself more clear in my
thoughts on this issue.  I merely wish to hold the police to the
same standards I am held by, and also point out that drawing and
aiming a weapon doesn't mean it has to be used, only that the
percieved threat might justify it, and if this threat is true then
it is best to be prepared for it.  If the threat is untrue, nobody
has been harmed.  In cases where this is not true, the the laws
already exist, and the police should be held up to them.  I won't
make the police uphold a standard I cannot bear, and likewise I
expect them to do the same for me.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >