From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 3
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:45:21 GMT

In article <4400222@iftccu.boeing.com>, bressler@iftccu.boeing.com
(Rick Bressler) writes:

> I think a lot of the discussion generated over the recent accidental
> police shooting of an innocent woman in Washington State has been due to
> some misconceptions about how the law works here.  First of all, let me
> state the facts as I know them.
> 
> [...]
>
> A police review judged that Tony's action was not criminal.
> 
> A coroners inquest, in a split decision agreed.

Huh? A previous post stated:

- The inquest jury likewise did not agree.  Of the six jurors, three
- considered it intentional homicide, one called it negligent homicide,
- and the remaining two deemed it excusable homicide.  Unfortunately,
- the jurors findings were only "advisory" and Canova has chosen to
- ignore inquest findings which, in any other circumstances, would
- clearly call for a criminal trial.

3 persons calling it intentional homicide, 1 calling it negligent
homicide, and 2 calling it excusable homicide hardly qualifies
as an agreement with the police deparment's review.

If this previous post is incorrect, does someone know the facts?
If this previous post is correct, I suggest this case be referred
to the Grand Jury, and let them decide if there is sufficient evidence
of wrongdoing for a trial.

> A lot of people seem to be peeved that there wasn't some sort of
> criminal trial.  Perhaps this is because they don't realize how the law
> is set up in WA.

Laws against murder are not limited to Washington.

> Perhaps people don't understand what a coroners inquest means around
> here.  First of all, the coroner is an elected official, not appointed
> by the police department or mayor or whatever.  He has no connection
> with the PD.  Secondly the panel is composed of CIVILIANS and the
> procedure is open to the PUBLIC.

And, according to a previous post, the inquest hardly agreed with the
police review.  If _all_ parties involved has cleared Tony of wrongdoing,
then _justice_ has been served. (there are still questions about Tony's
superiors, however...)

> Personally, I don't attribute any particular magic to a group of
> citizens called a JURY in lieu of a PANEL.  It is enough for me that the
> police review was reviewed by a civilian body.  Had there been
> significant doubt, there WOULD have been a trial.
> [...]
> keep in mind:  Two investigations, one by an independent civil authority
> absolved him of all blame.  Secondly, from what I have been able to
> determine, any of us might have reacted the same way.

See above.

> 1) I think there are a lot of people out there who are still sore over
> the Rodney King incident and are looking for any excuse to condemn the
> police anywhere.

Just out of curiosity, I thought I heard that the jury was hung on
one charge, for one officer.  Does anyone have the details.  I assumed
that point (and one officer) would be re-tried.

> 2) There are a lot of armchair cowboys out there who think that these
> things are always clear cut and that the bad guys always are well lit
> and carry signs, and 

Ahhh...  A classic method to discount the arguments of others, write
them off as "armchair cowboys", or something similar.

> that any mistake in the part of the police is criminal.

But this was not just *any* mistake, this was a fatal mistake.

> 3) Civil rights folks who are outraged over a warrant being issued in
> the first place.

Kirk Hays had posted:

- From the July 21st _Oregonian_:
-
- EVERETT, Wash. -- Family members of a woman killed in a sheriff's [...]
- [...]
- Swat [sic] team members from Everett and Mountlake Terrace police
- carried out simultaneous raids in their jurisdictions and arrested five
- other men who were related to Pratt and who also were implicated by the
- informant.
- [...]
- All charges against the men, including Pratt's husband, later were
- dropped for lack of evidence.  Witnesses said Larry Pratt was at work
- at the time of the robbery.  The others also had alibis.
- [...]

It seems like a little checking would have determined if the accusation
was true.  Wrongful arrest of 6 men, and wrongful killing of one woman
seems like reasonable grounds for outrage.

> I feel that this was a dreadful tragedy, but probably an unavoidable
> one.

This, I do not accept.

> [...]
> Is arbitrarily signaling out one person to hold responsible any fairer?

Who said one person?  I suggested his actions be properly reviewed.
I suggested his superiors be strung up.

> Everybody is of course entitled to their own opinion.  You should not
> however make snap judgements on what you read in the paper or see posted
> in the net.  Try to get some facts first.

I am quite intersted in the facts, but I find the media quite
unreliable.  Any suggestions?

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns