From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2 (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 06:23:05 GMT

dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:

>In article <viking.714708697@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu
>(Dan Sorenson) writes:

>   dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:

>   >You know, I think we are dealing with a false dichotomy here.

>>	   What false dichotomy?  Innocent until proven guilty in a court
>>   of law.  Prior to that, only suspected if so warranted, but still innocent.
>>   I made this example specifically because I felt we'd be all too quick to
>>   scream "But I was justified!" if it happened to us, and seemed all too
>>   quick to scream "Tony is a murderer" when it happens to an innocent.  My
>>   original reason for responding was just that it seemed a slippery slope
>>   from "Tony is guilty!" based on what the media reports to "The woman
>>   who was being assaulted is guilty of murdering that 350lb man, who was
>>   really just a teddy bear and only wanted to give her a friendly hug."

>>	   Perhaps there is no mutual respect in some areas, but in others it
>>   does exist, and I wish to see it continue.

>I think not.  If we await the verdict of a court to discuss any issue,
>then we wait forever.  We can discuss the issues involved using the
>reported facts as a base.  Corrections are fine; however, dicussing
>the advisability of no-knock warrents using the reported facts as a
>case study (and other issues) seems fair game.

	I assume you are referring to discussion on the net, not to the
punishing of a person?  I'll grant that, as it harms nobody and is quite
good for intellectual fodder.  BTW: I am not in favor of no-knock searches,
only no-knock arrests when intelligence reports show the suspect is inside
and there exists reasonable, and not just probable, cause to suspect the
suspect will be prepared and waiting for an arrest attempt.  This does not
mean the law-abiding gun owner, since it is very unlikely a gun owner
comes home from work, barricades the door, and takes up a defensive
position with weapon drawn.  Intelligence should show what the defensive,
as well as offensive, posture of the suspect is like, and this has been
very lacking in police procedures according to posts here.

>Now, I know that there were some posts that wholesale condemned Tony
>as a person, not as an abstraction; indeed, this is the only name I
>have for him, and feel (given my tendancy for formality) in using it.
>If you meant to try and exclude these fine; however, the verdict of a
>court is not the way to do it.

	On the contrary, I meant to include not only these posts but
also Tony as an abstraction.  How can I judge without being on a jury?
I consider Tony the same as I consider any hypothetical person so long
as I judge from my desk and not a jury box.  I expect the others who
believe in gun ownership and hence rights, including the right to a jury
of one's peers, to do the same.  Perhaps my mission wasn't clear in this
regard, but this was my intent and my thoughts at the time of my first
post on the subject.  The verdict of the court is final.  We, on the
other hand, can debate all we want.  The posts of "Tony is guilty, Tony
acted deliberately, and Tony's gun did not malfunction" I see as the
armchair jurists judging without facts.  We shouldn't do that.  We may
form opinions, but let's be clear on what our opinions are and what we
say is a fact or a verdict.  Tony is guilty?  No, Tony looks to be guilty
based upon what we've read.  He might be innocent based upon evidence not
posted here.  I protect the rights of the citizen to be innocent over the
rights of popular demand to pronounce him guilty.  Gun owners need to
look at this.  Today you're only guilty if you own an assault weapon or
a magazine over 15 rounds.  What tomorrow?

>   >My best friend is an ex-cop, and a member of the Emergency Response
>   >Team (equivalent of SWAT).  He has gone in some doors in his time, and
>   >one drug-crazed suspect required seventy-two separate rounds before he
>   >stopped coming at an ERT member with a knife.  From his professional
>   >point of view, based ONLY upon publicly reported events, this guy
>   >should be tried for some form of homicide.

>	   From the point of view of whom?  I'd like you to elaborate on
>   this, since I'm having a hard time parsing that, and it would also be
>   interesting to see just how the media portrayed the incident compared
>   to testimony from a man who was there.

>Damn.  And again.  It's been a long time since I wrote something this
>blatently ambiguous.  My profound apologies.

	No apologies needed in my direction -- I've made similar and worse
mistakes already in this thread.  To all I've misinterpreted due to parsing
or mis-reading, my apologies as well.

>The "this guy" referred to in the last senatence is the officer who
>shot the woman in Washington; who we have been calling Tony.  He gave
>no opinion on the Norfolk shooting; or rather, an (implicit) one that
>it was indeed justified.

	That does indeed clear things up.  My only question: "Is the
popular media a substitute for testimony at the trial?"  Since we get
no trial due to no prosecution on criminal charges of Tony, I suspect
your friend knows as little as we do.

	Side note: the Rodney King Trial cops are up for civil charges
now from the US Government.  Does this set a precedent that those brought
up on civil charges can be tried again on criminal?  It seems like a simple
case of politics to me, but I'd be interested in any lawyer-types letting
us know if criminal charges can be brought if a civil charge fails since
it seems a civil charge can be brought if a criminal charge fails.

	NOTE: there are previous messages which must wait a day or
two for my reply.  I'm taking classes now and only answer those which
I feel are fairly simple to reply to while on-line.  Look for your
replies within a day or two.  2400 baud is fairly slow for this sort
of thing, and hence my reply out-of-sequence here.

<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. >
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20476 soc.culture.french:6424