From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 08:40:33 GMT

In <3162@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:

>Dan Sorenson writes:

>> Robert Osborne writes:
>> >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.

>Dan, you've missed the point so often I'm beginning to wonder if you
>are stupid or being deliberately dense.

	No to both, but I reserve the right to be labeled as "dense"
when I am actually unwilling to decide without all of the facts in
front of me.  This thread has produced remarkably limited information,
and I won't judge individuals until I have concrete facts available.

>A police officer can NEVER know ahead of time that he WILL be in clear
>and present danger.  According to the law everybody is innocent until
>proven guilty so how could Tony KNOW that there was a killer inside.
>The SUSPECT (do you know what that means Dan?) wasn't even there
>so how could Tony be in clear and present danger from innocent
>bystanders!

	I can only assume that a pre-raid briefing was held, at which
time Tony was told who and what he was trying to apprehend.  That
briefing should have included the suspect description and the
description of any non-suspected known to be in the house.  That it
may not have points to wrongdoing on the part of his superiors, not
necessarially Tony himself, though he or others should have brought it
up during the briefing.  Yes, a police officer can _never_ know what
hy faces.  Do you wish guns drawn and aimed at a traffic stop?  I
do not, and I have to balance the rights of the officer to self-
defense with the rights I enjoy just as you do.  Thus, I'm willing
to give Tony a right to prudent behavior (unsecuring safety strap
on holster, chambering a round, perhaps drawing the weapon) based
upon the circumstances.  Given what little (and I stress little)
I know, Tony entered believing a murderer was in the house, and
may have acted based upon this interest.  I won't know, because a
board or trial was not held and no findings released.

	Let's think about that.  Clearly this is somebody who is
believed to have killed, and that he has not been found guilty of
having done so doesn't imply that Tony must entered unarmed and
unarmored because of it.  The charge clearly implies that Tony
should be capable of protecting himself.  So Tony enters, and if
we assume he is competent, his team arrests the "bad guy" and no
harm comes of it.  This didn't happen.   Tony's gun discharges,
and kills a lady.  I cannot stop that, and I cannot prevent that
sort of potential short of making Tony enter without the benefit
of ready *defensive* firepower.  I am unwilling to make Tony take
a bullet before he can fire back, and I am likewise unwilling to
take the same risks myself.  I only balance what Tony can do with
what I can do.  Clearly a board needs to investigate, and in this
case a trial should be held, but in the USA unarmed cops are targets,
and I won't have them protecting my rights and not enjoying the
same rights I hold.

>Tony could not have been in clear and present danger because the
>'danger' wasn't even home at the time.

	Given how the intent of the raid was to protect potential
hostages (the kids), can you say that the clear and present danger
that may have been lacking towards Tony was also lacking towards
the kids?  Tony didn't know the suspect wasn't home, I suspect.  His
thoughts should have been, "Secure kids, then seek the suspect."
I don't exonerate Tony by any means, but I do point out that he is
just as innocent as the lady he shot until a jury finds him guilty,
and I am quite pissed off that no such trial will take place.  Still,
if that lady appeared to be a threat to the kids, would he have been
justified in firing?  I won't say yes or no without more facts, but
it seems that the protection of the kids was paramount, and hence he
would have been justified in shooting (and note this clause!) had
he thought the kids were endangered by the woman.

>If Tony 'interprets' the behaviour of a panic stricken woman who has
>just had her house broken into by armed men as something deserving
>shooting he is, at best,  criminally incompetent.

	Can you say the same of the murder suspect he was supposed
to apprehend?  I'd probably start shooting at said armed men, and
hence said men would be perfectly justified in shooting me.  I do
point out that I am not a murderer, so there is little need to
break down my doors and storm into my house.  Still, since neither
of us will probably ever know all the facts on this matter, I ask
you this: Is Tony guilty until proven innocent, or is he deserving
the benefit of the doubt and any plausible excuse we may think of
until a jury finds him guilty of an appropriate charge?

	I *will not* have police give up the same rights I enjoy
due to their job, and neither will I give up my rights so that
they might perform their job a little better.   I merely wish
to strike a balance between pronouncing Tony as a de facto murderer
and allowing Tony the benefit of the doubt, as various conditions
on plausible scenarios evidence.  I say a jury should decide.
Not you or I from the comfort of our terminals and without all the
facts to guide us.

<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. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns