From: gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:05:28 GMT
Organization: Demi-Public System (One of the Eternal Champions); Eagan, MN, 55123-2507, USA

Dan's reply is generally thoughtful, despite the strident tone of my
original post.  This is merely to correct a couple of misconceptions
I detect in Dan's response.

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>I'm tired, it's hours past the time I should be in bed, but I can't let
>this go.  I'm sorry if you've heard it before.

>gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray) writes:


>>In your opinion, then, there is nothing wrong with storming a house with
>>deadly weapons you cannot control and killing innocent people?  "Tony"
>>_took_an_OATH_ to defend the Constitution!  You cannot take that oath and
>>then assert a Nurenburg defense when you screw up!

>	You have two problems here.  1) Tony most likely could control
>that MP5, but he fired it at the wrong target.  When _you_ come under
>gunfire then come back and talk to me.  Until then, you cannot know
>how much being in the situation means.  2) I would have killed two people
>had I not known that they didn't know I was there.  I've been shot
>twice, and I'm pretty sure that I would have acted similarly given the
>same orders.  Note this "given" that I reserve.  If I hunt deer, I do
>not expect to be gored.  If I hunt boar, I expect it.  Tony might have
>felt similar thing prior to storming the house.

Dan, I understand and respect your opinion here.  But what concerns me is
that part about "if I ever come under fire."  If I do, it will probably be
from some triggerhappy cop with an SMG.

As I will explain very briefly at the end of this post, we have a major 
problem in the Twin Cities with cops shooting first and making up excuses
later--then having the excuses taken a Scripture.  So my experience
definitely makes me fear the cops more than the robbers.

>	Can you imagine storming a house?  I'd say you cannot.  Neither
>can I.  I'm not Tony, and I don't know what it's like to storm a house
>full of "armed and dangerous" people.  I'll give Tony the benefit of
>the doubt in this case.  Just as civilians are killed in a war, so are
>civilians killed in police raids.  I accept both, but I do not *at
>all* condone either.

Sorry, Dan.  The tactical situation is not presented well, but even the
Village Idiot would evacuate neighbors and ask them if they knew about the
occupants of the house.  If "poor Tony" was on a SWAT team that didn't do
even things that basic, then he was criminally negligent and deserves to
be tried and convicted for his part in this tragedy.

>>Poor "Tony!"  He has these delusions of competence, gets to carry a big
>>bad SMG, gets to kill entirely innocent women stupid enough to care more
>>for their babies than themselves, and as special bonuses, gets to make the
>>kids watch it AND gets to have the _criminal_ justice (how aptly named!)
>>system tell him it's all ok, now go back to work.

>	Based upon this last paragraph, I feel no lack of judgement is
>called for in order for me to think you are a mindless twit who would
>have trouble tying his shoelaces in a strong breeze.  Don't judge Tony
>until you've stormed a house and were expecting gunfire.

Then where would we find fit juries for such people?  Oh, I get it!  We let
the POLICE make the judgements about whether the POLICE used excessive force
or were criminally negligent!

Dan, I know I am upset and so are you, but surely you cannot mean that only
those who use excessive force, disregard the Constitution, illegally storm
family homes and kill people should be entitled to judge others who do the
same things!?

What I said was:  1)  Tony is incompetent.  He killed an unarmed, innocent
woman--hard to make a competence defense based on that.  2.)  He was carrying
an SMG--not a fact in dispute.  3.)  The kids saw it happen before their eyes,
again, not a fact in dispute.  4.)  The CJ system let him go, despite a
majority opinion of the coroner's jury that he should be tried.  5.)  The
DA in question restored him to full duty.

I am outraged at this entire scenario--every piece of it--and said so in
ooutraged terms.  Yet you call me a mindless twit who cannot tie my own
shoes in a strong breeze?

>	When your emotions get the best of you, your judgement is
>likely to be flawed.  Based upon the information presented, I am not
>willing to give Tony a break, but I give you less one one as you seem
>to think Tony guilty of murder 1 without benefit of a trial.  This is
>my main reason for posting this reply.

I am furious at the system for placing Tony there and at Tony for what he did
there.  But I do not think my post can be read as saying Tony should be
tried for murder 1;  As I understand murder in the first degree, it requires
malice beforehand, and a concious and willful desire to take a human life.
Nothing in the original post justifies anything like that.

I think that Tony is probably guilty of voluntary manslaughter, a felony, and
that he should do hard time.  But if a jury of the woman's peers heard all the evidence and felt it was involuntary manslaughter--or even that "poor Tony"
is not guilty--I could accept that.

But the DA has made sure that no jury will hear any charges--at least not
until "poor Tony" gets carried away again.

The absolute last thing on earth that should happen is for "poor Tony" to
go back onto the streets as a cop without a full, fair, and public trial.

>	Even if he doesn't remember pulling the trigger, he remembers
>the results of that action.  Trust me on this, he remembers, and he
>will remember until the day he dies.

I hope you are right.

>	And I resent the implication that you know it all and are the
>final judge of what needs to be done.  You referenced the Nuremburg trials
>before -- what makes you think the private questions the reasons of the
>general?  You don't.  It's said, you do it, unless you have a very good
>reason to disobey that order.  Tony was given information relevant to his
>job, and made his decisions on that.  Given only that info, what would
>you have done?

We seem to disagree on the degree to which subordinates can be shielded by
the orders of their superiors.  I believe that each of us is accountable
for our actions to a much larger degree than you seem to.

As for what I would have done--what can I say that you will credit?  If I
say I would not participate on the raid without a better understanding of the
quality of the information that put us there, you tell me that privates
don't ask questions, they just do it.

But I cannot believe that I would put an SMG into my hands and assault a
family dwelling without excellent first-hand information.  Failing that, I
would have to have personal experience with the intelligence system *and*
the players involved before i would go in.  Cops are supposed to *protect*
people, even at the risk of their own lives.  If I could not honestly tell
myself that I would not shoot an innocent person just to protect my own
skin, I would find another job--just as "poor Tony" should.

>	One wonders which is more important, the life of one or the power
>of a majority.  Keep that in mind.

I do not grant them one life.  "No person. . . shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . "  Amendment V.

>	What I'm posting here is this: I don't know all the facts, and I do
>not pretend to.  All I say is that given the same situation I wonder if he
>intentionally murdered her, or not.  A shot to the neck is a lucky shot, and
>the trooper in quesiton was lucky (bad luck, that is).  Given the same, I
>would hope for a board if inquiry and then a fair trial, not a reader of
>talk.politics.guns passing judgement based on what another posted and her
>kids saw.  I merely ask for justice on fact, not emotion.

I went ballistic *because* the cops got away with it again.  THERE WILL BE
NO CRIMINAL TRIAL.  If there are extenuating circumstances, the people in
that family and in that city deserve to hear it in open court, with cross-
examination.  But the people who should be conducting that cross-examination
have said, No Trial.

It stinks.

And I never accused him of murder 1.  He killed her and he should stand trial.

As for the rest, we seem to basically agree, except that you are offended
by my outraged tone.  That's too bad, but I remain outraged:  This is an
outrageous situation.

Bill
PS.  In the last three years, Twin Cities cops have killed two elderly
black people in a drug raid, shot dead an unarmed 17-year old black male
running from a party where someone either fired shots or firecrackers,
and shot dead two 13-year Hmong boys who were running away from a joyriding
crash.

No charges were filed in any case, and all the cops are still on duty.  Final
body count is not yet in. . .
-- 
gray@hawkmoon.mn.org
This site gets a fair news feed, but e-mail is more reliable. . . :-(
"Veni, vidi, vomiti!"  -- the ghost of Tom Jefferson on reading the Brady Bill
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns