Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 1 Sep 92 08:42:41 EST
 <1992Aug31.113342.3817@desire.wright.edu> <tzhn3jg.adamsr@netcom.com>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <tzhn3jg.adamsr@netcom.com>, adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
> 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:

	Until *you* understand, I guess we'll have to keep enlightening you :).

> 
> 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.
>                  ^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^
>  

	Notice the qualification.  "If they come at me"

	Clear yet?

> 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?
> 

	Nope.  You take his statement about being attacked by someone and then
say "gosh, he's going to shoot old ladies!".

	I don't care *who* is doing the attacking, 100lb women or little green
men, if you are attacked you have the right to defend yourself.

>>	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. 

	The cop told her to freeze.  She attacked him.  It was remarkable that
only four shots were fired.

>She was known to be mentally unstable and armed with a
> machete. 

	"She was know to be mentally unstable".  You have proof that the police
knew both who she was and what her mental state was at the time of the
incident?
	Even then, an armed lunatic is not exactly the kind of person who
listens to reason.

> Was there any NEED to rush in instead of either attempting
> negotiations or at least using tear gas? 

	Yes.  There were potential hostages.

> 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?

	Nope, the need to keep innocent people alive overrode her right to be
armed, crazy, and attack people.

> 	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?

	Why did she attack them?  Why should then not defend themselves?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!