From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Bicycles are Vehicles (was Mandatory Helmets)
Date: 14 Dec 92 01:54:55 GMT
Organization: Totally Unorganized

In article <1992Dec13.094318.2950@eskimo.com> jammer@eskimo.com (Lyle Harwood) writes:
>Dennis Wicks (wix@eskimo.com) wrote:
>
> [... discussion of bicycling style, etc deleted ...]
>
>There is one more issue I haven't seen addressed here.
>That issue is that I pay a considerable amount of money on a yearly
>basis
>in the form of liscense fees to use *my* roads.
>
>Bicylclist do not. 
>
>The issue would be resolved, in my mind, by any tax, even a token, but
>as it is, I do not share the use of a resource that I have purchased 
>with people who have not contributed to it's upkeep.

That is not likely to happen.  It's not considered 'Progressive'.

>The idea that I be inconvienced in any way by someone useing a resource
>that I've purchased is abhorent to me. I did not purchase it for them.

Good philosophy on the surface, but are you SURE you don't make use
of other resources which you have not personally contributed to the
creation of or the upkeep?  I would feel uncomfortable imposing standards
on others that I knowingly do not live up to myself.  The Liberals seem
to do quite an adequate job of that - enough to make up for everyone
many times over.

>Officer Flanagan, you seem like a reasonable man, and a credit to your
>uniform. You sound like the type of man I want as a police officer.
>
>[A
>Except for one statement.
>
>Force will never change nor alter my mind, only reason will.
>When any weapon makes it's appearance, any discussion with me will
>cease, instantly, to be about the subject we WERE talking about,
>and will become a contest of force.

Nothing wrong with the above.  Someone present a weapon under other
than amicable conditions, without lawful reason, the threat WILL be
neutralized.

>You are correct, in my opinion, in your assumption that even with a gun,
>you are seriously "outgunned" when facing a person in a motor vehicle.
>In keeping with my statement above that I want men like you as police
>officers, I urge you to reconsider your tactic of displaying weapons
>to motorist. 

Uh - he didn't say he pulled or showed the sidearm.  What he DID say
was that he unzipped his jacket so as to have instant access to the
weapon.  That doesn't display a gun, or imply anything unusual (I sure
would not like folks to assume I was about to throw down on them just
because I unzip a jacket).  I know many folks are very big on 'correct'
behavior, but I don't think it has degenerated THAT far (yet).

Unzipping a cover garmet sounds like a prudent act for anyone to do when
somone starts hollering at them in an angry manner, since the person
might not be one who will stop at nasty words, or want to be talked
down.  If he DID try to attack the person on the bicycle, that is a
helluva time to be fumbling with zippers, while trying to get out of
the guys line of attack and duck traffic, etc.

>You may run into someone who will immediately enter a contest of force
>with you.

That was why he unzipped his jacket - so as to improve a lousy situation
to a bad one, in a tactical sense.

>It would be a shame to lose an officer of your caliber.
>
>The way you described the incident in question, you used your
>authorization to carry concealed weapons as an instrument of
>"payback".

That is not true.  Figure it out - they parted on half amicable terms.
That would not have been the case had he presented the weapon.  All this
is based on an *ASSUMPTION* that unzipping a garmet is identical to
pulling down or flashing on the guy.

>This is a sane use of deadly force? 
>
>You were in no danger, officer. Furthermore, you targeted the wrong
>person...
>
>I carried a gun for 5 years before I sobered up.

What does 'sobered' up mean?  You finally figured out that a gun does
NOT confer superman powers, or that you bought into the idea that all
guns are bad, and 'proper' folk just don't carry, unless they are employed
by the STATE?

>The one thing I learned, because of the finality of the option, was how
>to controll my temper.

That is something anybody who carries has to learn fast.

>I am still sensitive to an implied use of deadly force. 
>I still would not tolerate it around me.

I take that to mean you won't tolerate anybody excercising a legal right
in your presence (to have a gun somewhere on their person) because you
have decided guns aren't for you?  Kinda sounds like attempting to impose
your choices on them.  That must make encounters with police very tense
indeed for you... as when a cop stops you, deadly force is very MUCH
implied.  Most street savvy cops have unsnapped their holsters before
approaching your car, and have their hand on the butt of the weapon, so
as to be ready for ANYTHING.  Make a move so as to startle/surprise one
under those conditions and see what happens.

The best way to keep folks from 'implying' use of deadly force when
in your presence is to not act in a manner that they feel they are
at risk of deadly danger from you.  I doubt many are going to restrain
from carrying just because you might show up.

>Such actions are the actions of punks, street gangs, and children of the
>type I used to be.

If the above is meant to stereotype folks who choose to excercise their
RKBA, you are flat out of pocket here.  WAY out of line.  You can only
speak for yourself on this one.

>I urge you not to display your weapon untill you intend to use it.
>I also urge you, by the same token, not to hesitate if you do.
>Fireing a weapon may end, if not solve, a problem, but pointing never
>will.

I repeat, where did he say he presented, or even made the weapon visible
to the motorist?  Accessable != visible.

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket" 
Newsgroups: seattle.general