From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 03:42:32 GMT

osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:

>>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.  

>	And let us not forget that the danger must be clear and immediate.

	At what stage do you require the danger to be before the police can
prepare to defend themselves?  They wear guns now.  There must be some sort
of danger that makes this a prudent move.  That it doesn't exist in the
local Dunkin Donuts doesn't mean they shouldn't wear them in there too.
It does mean that they have no business preparing to use it in Dunkin
Donuts.  Training and experience may provide enough insight to cause the
officer to enter that Dunkin Donuts with gun drawn.  A clerk stuffing the
contents of the register in a paper bag while another man in a ski mask
stands before him is one possible clue.  Now let's suppose the man in the
ski mask was just horribly burned on his face and didn't want to offend
others with his visage, and that he'd paid for the donuts with a $100 bill,
you can see that there is no reason to go in pointing a gun.  There was,
in my opinion, justification.  The reason being ascertained, the gun is
put away and everybody is alive and safe.  When this does not happen, then
somebody acted recklessly and a trial shall determine punishment.

>>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.

>	You said it.

	And I disagreed, noting that a person being arrested for suspicion
of murder has not proven he is dangerous, but that prudence dictates he be
assummed dangerous until arrested.  That unarmed woman was not a threat.
The cops would be stupid to assume her not dangerous, though, and not be
prepared for her to be a threat, just as I am stupid for not wearing a
helmet and leathers when riding or a seat belt when driving.  The other
drivers and their cars are only rarely threats.  They are, however,
potentially dangerous and need to be considered as such.  The precautions
I take are reasonable for the situation.  I expect all citizens, and the
police, to take reasonable precautions.  What is reasonable depends almost
entirely on the situation, and the evaluation of that situation can often
depend on intuition, backed by training and experience.  Can you tell when
a bull is tired of you and is going to try and make you a permenant part
of the landscape?  Growing up on a farm and raising cattle, I have some
degree of experience and insight you might not in this situation.  I would
have a very difficult time spotting a potential mugger while in Chicago.
You, I suspect, would have some degree of experience and intuition that
would make you better at this than I.  Let's not judge all situations
without the counsel of those who might have this.  Thus, a jury need not
be of police to judge a cop, but I do expect at least an expert witness
and testimony to allow the jury to evaluate the claims made by the
defendant and follow his reasoning in the situation.

>	Some of the things Dan said were pretty amazing.  I think if Dan-O
>	were to become the victim of one of these "accidental" shootings,
>	I suspect he might feel just a *wee* bit differently.

	I've been shot.  Twice, as a matter of fact.  That the people
doing the shooting were idiots doesn't change the fact that the vast
majority of shooters did not shoot at me, and that I have no reason to
ban their usage of a gun for the protection of their lives, the lives
of others, and of their property based upon the irresponsible and idiotic
behavior of two people.  I extend the same rights to the police.  Do you?

<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