From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:01:03 GMT

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
> 	This I did not reference in my previous post, and I feel I need
> to explain myself.  I think the police and the military have similar roles
> outside of full-blown wars of conquest.  Both are military organizations,
> and follow a chain of command that insulates the lowest, but puts the
> responsibility on the highest.  Both are involved in actions against
> what are hostile enemies.

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.

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.

> 	I'm not talking about traffic cops any more than I am the shore
> patrol, though both may find hostile people at any time.  Both have that
> degree of uncertainty, which they must deal with.  I'm talking more about
> the grunt who has been told that building A contains people who wish to
> kill him, and it's his job to secure it.

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.

> 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
    
> 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!!!)

> 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.

> 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?

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com