From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<1992Aug15.181447.9411@hawkmoon.mn.org>
	<viking.714019331@vincent1.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:13:14 GMT

In article <viking.714019331@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu
(Dan Sorenson) writes:

   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.

I do not know what it is like to storm a house, nor to be a police
officer in an emergency situation.  Even given this, comparing the
police acting against American citizens with consititutional
protections and soldiers in a war is reprehensible.  The rules are
different, the priorities are different, and the training is
different.

I do not know the situation, and I am not judging the officer
involved.  Nevertheless, the fact that an officer (in general, not
necessarily in this specific case) is under tremendous pressure does
not absolve him from responsibility for his actions, any more than a
homeless man stealing food for his family is absolved if he kills
someone in the process.  I cannot imagine being either; they are
stresses with which my comfortable life has not presented me.  This
does not mean that either one can be guilty of murder.

   I agree, but you cannot expect a cop who has been told the people
   he is out to arrest are dangerous to handle them with kid gloves
   just because they haven't fired first.  I draw only a minor
   distinction here.

On the contrary, I can and do expect that.  If we do not expect this,
more innocent people will die.  If "just because they haven't fired
first" is a little severe, immediate indications of danger to himself
or someone else is not.  Damn it, anything less simply is not
acceptable.  It is the job of a police officer to protect the public
before his own life.  An incredibly severe demand, but one that he or
she knew before signing on.

With all this, human mistakes will happen.  When they do, the officer
involved, as well as those who ordered him into the situation, should
be held accountable.  (It shouldn't be necessary; nevertheless, I
repeat that I do not know the facts of this particular case, and am
speaking generally).

   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 agree; however, my criteria seem to differ considerably from yours.
If they are unfair, I can sympathize for the officer forced to operate
under them; however, I refuse to lower them.  I will NOT apply the
same rules to police officers as to soldiers under fire in a war zone,
in unfriendly country.  I am shocked that anyone would suggest it.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns