From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 3
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 08:45:55 GMT

In <9g_nn5#@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:

>Bullshit!  The police stormed in with the intent of getting the perp
>who had killed "one of us."  That cowboy with the MP5 was cocked and
>ready to have the perp try something so he could kill him because he
>was a "cop killer." (even if the cop may have been a rent-a-cop.)

	If you can prove this assertation, the courts lie open to
your pleas for justice.  If you cannot, is your assertation any better
than mine, where I assert that the police stormed in with the intent
of only re-arranging the living room furniture?  Are the roving band of
interior decorators I describe a threat to anybody?

>Let's look at your logic.  We have a perp who has allegedly killed a 
>guard asleep in a house full of other innocents.  Since he has 
>(allegedly) killed one cop, he would likely not hesitate in shooting
>again.  In this circumstance, you're claiming that the safest method
>to arrest this fellow was to storm the damn place gestapo-style?
>How crazy can you get?

	I note that the "gestapo-style" raids you mention are
used by hostage-rescue teams.  It may be appropriate one place and
situation, it may not be in another.  Certainly being prepared to
meet an armed person in this raid is not inappropriate, so what is
so crazy about using them where the situation dictates?  Nobody
ever said this is the best method in all situations, only that it
may have been best in this situation.  I think more facts are needed
before a jury, let alone you and I at our terminals, can decide.

[ what I agree with deleted -- you read it once before ]

>Even the excuse of simultaneous arrest does not fly.  ON THE FACE OF IT,
>THAT IS A LIE since the cops did not even know where the perp was.
>Beyond that, each perp could have been grabbed, along with any witnesses
>and held in lockup for the period of time it took to get them all.
>Yeah, it might be a risk of having one or more of them walk due to 
>rights violations but given a choice of a perp getting off or an
>innocent being shot down like a dog, which would your choose?

	A perp walking, no question about it.  However, I don't know
all the facts that made a sumultanous arrest so paramount.  Do you?
This incident has armchair (or desk chair) generals coming out of the
woodwork.  The real thing to ponder is if there was sufficient reason
for this decision that endangered lives of both police and civilians.
I don't think so, but I won't pass a judgement until all is know.
That others seem to do so is quite alarming to me, just as alarming
as no justification other than headlines would be for doing this raid.

>Bullshit, Rick.  His MP5 did nothing.  Tony loaded the weapon.  Tony
>entered that room with the safety off and his finger on the trigger.
>Tony pointed the weapon at the victim and Tony pulled the trigger.

	Again, can you prove this?  If so, end this thread by taking
it to court.  If not, doesn't Tony deserve a jury to make this decision?

>Tony's MP5 acted like any other inanimate object - it responded by
>functioning as designed.  Nice try, though, trying to blame an 
>inanimate object.  Got your HCI card yet?

	That MP5 is a machine, and subject to failure or malfunction.
HCI card?  Yeah, I need something to light the grill with tomorrow
afternoon.  If your car tire has a blow-out at 65mph and you hit
another car trying to regain control, by your logic it's 100% your
intentional action because that tire is an inanimate object and
functioned as designed.  Can you see where it is *possible* that
Tony might not be directly responsible?  Can you not also see where
the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" as used to find somebody guilty
*might* apply in this case?

>The law has little to do with this.  

        The law has *EVERYTHING* to do with this!  If you deny the
protection of the law to Tony, how can you claim it for yourself?

>The prosecutor has broad powers in
>cases like these.  I know how this stuff works. I've worked in a 
>prosecutor's office and one of my good friends is an ex DA, now judge.
>The prosecutor could have charged this cop with anything ranging from
>reckless endangerment to manslaughter to murder.  This would have done
>three things.  First, it would have gotten this trigger-happy yahoo 
>off the streets before he could kill again.  Second, the system 
>would be given an opportunity to determine the facts and met out 
>punishment as indicated.  Third, it might go a bit of the way toward 
>reestablishing police accountability.  As it is now, Tony can think "Say,
>that wasn't so bad. You CAN get away with murder under color of law."

        And if Tony was innocent, or the law didn't cover or even
allowed his particular crime?  I say exercise your power as a voter
and change the law, not lambaste Tony because you aren't satisfied.  I
also note that my riding a motorcycle could, under your "could have
charged ... with anything" scenario make me subject to reckless
endangerment charges against myself!  Is that really how we wish the
law to work?  Charging Al Capone with tax evasion when he was guilty
of murder (to assume such as the case) is one thing, but it is almost
a given that with the number of laws on the books we are all guilty of
something.  Let's keep the charge relevant to the crime.  Cattle
stealing is still a hanging offense in many states -- need we hang
cattle rustlers any more?  Similarly, not having a hitching post in
front of a saloon is a crime in Omaha, Nebraska.  Need a murderer be
charged with this crime if we cannot easily prove he's a murderer in
addition to a saloon owner? 

>Another lame attempt to depersonalize this crime.  Unless his mind has hands,
>it did nothing.  TONY dropped the hammer on that woman.

	Again, if you can prove it you should take that proof and use
it to prosecute Tony at a trial.

>>There is no doubt that Tony made a mistake.  The important points to
>>keep in mind:  Two investigations, one by an independent civil authority
>>absolved him of all blame.

>Let's try another catagory.  Those of us who have been associated with 
>the police long enough to know how they think, how they cover for each
>other and how they view the public (perps and potential perps.) and 
>see this as just another case of a civilian suffering at the hands of 
>a police department out of control and a trigger-happy individual cop.

	Did the "civil authority" portion above not satisfy you?  If
not, take it to a court.  Or, you can go ahead and find Tony and kill
him using whatever means you wish if that's what it takes.  Don't expect
any sympathy from the jury -- they most likely won't take your
generalizations as reason for killing.  If this isn't fair to you now
that the tables are turned, perhaps you'd like to file a petetion from
your jail cell.  The justice system is fairly impartial, and I'd like
to see it kept that way, your or my emotions notwithstanding.

>Me, I always remember the old saying, "But for the Grace of God, there
>go I."

	You might apply that same phrase to Tony aoong with the women
who is now dead.

<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. >