From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 19:20:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man): 

>       But the woman shot was not unarmed.

	I've responded to this one before, but I suppose I must do so again.
Read the following quotations CAREFULLY:

JIM> If I'm holding a gun on somebody and they come at me I'll 
JIM> shoot.  Probably 15 times before stopping for 1.2 seconds 
JIM> to reload.  I don't care if they're armed or not.
                 ^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^
 
ME> Anyone who would shoot down an unarmed 100 lb mentally ill woman
ME> (which you just said you would do) needs therapy, not firearms!

	NOW does the statement make sense?

>	If the police (or anyone) shoot an armed person coming at them, what
>exactly should they have done instead?  Let the woman get a few chops in with
>the machete to prove she was life-endangering?
>
	How about handling the situation more intelligently in the first
place? The woman was isolated in the house. There were NO potential victims
accessible to her. She was known to be mentally unstable and armed with a
machete. Was there any NEED to rush in instead of either attempting
negotiations or at least using tear gas? Or was the risk of damaging the
Chancelor's house with gas fumes more important than attempting to subdue an
emotionally unstable woman without killing her?

	In most situations involving a "cornered" suspect, the cops are
willing to take the time to "talk" them out. Why the rush to charge in this
time? Even more important, why is a man who was fired from one force for
repeated use of excessive force working for another one rather than
permanently barred from law enforcement employment?
                               
	----------------------------------------------------------

	I have received a fair amount of email concerning this post, btw.
One piece in particular consisted of little more than vicious personal
attacks and ended with a statement that email responses FROM me would be
ignored, a convenient (if cowardly) way of insuring one's opinion (and
attacks) are not challenged. I emailed the following response to the
individual, which I am reposting here since I want no question to exist as
to their access to it:

	---------------------------------------------

==> NOTE *****************  Don't bother writing back, I'll just delete your
==>                         posting before reading.
==> 
        Then don't use email to argue public issues. 
 
        I will feel free to publicly post/respond to any future email from
you concerning this or any other issue, since you make it clear you wish to
attack via email then hide from the response.
 
        You have been notified that I will no longer consider your email
private, therefore I will not be violating netiquette by posting it
publicly.

		--------------------------------------------

	The original email to which this is a response came from:

		ce137z1@prism.gatech.edu (gaia)


	I prefer to argue issues publicly - but I REFUSE to be insulted
privately by those without the integrity to accept my response to their
raving!

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan)