From: gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Premeditated Murder - Part 2 (was Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:50:53 GMT
Organization: Demi-Public System (One of the Eternal Champions); Eagan, MN, 55123-2507, USA

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

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

>Temper should have nothing to do with it.  Don't be ashamed about
>arguing from an emotional basis, at least you are up front about it.

>I on the other hand am simply talking physiology human action/reaction
>under stress.  This is something that has been studied in detail.  I
>happen to know a little about the subject.  I feel for the 'poor'
>officer because I have a pretty good idea what he went through and I've
>been in situations that lead to me to believe that 'there but for the
>grace of God go I.'  (Or any of us in this discussion.)  That doesn't
>mean that I feel any less for the family.  What it does mean, is that I
>feel that the officer is being made (unfairly) the scape goat in an
>incident that isn't primarily his fault.  You guys want to pick the easy
>targets and damn the facts.  At the same time you are condemning this
>officer for unintentionally doing what you are intentionally doing!

>Have you stopped to think about his family and what they are going
>through?  I didn't think so.

First, my understanding is that armed citizens are guilty of wrongful
use of lethal force about 1/3 as often as cops are.  Hence, whether you
or I have been life/death situations like this one is interesting but
not the sole consideration--we are still only a third as liekly to have
killed the mother as Tony was.

And yes, I _have_ thought about Tony's family.  The are innocent, but
they will suffer.

Lastly, I have made mistakes myself.  But unlike police officers, I am
expected to be accountable for my mistakes.  God knows that if _I_ had
shot that woman as a civilian under more or less the same circumstances,
the DA would strangle me in my own gut and the media would be screaming
about civilians using machineguns.

Seriously--there are plenty of really remote rural areas in this country
where a bad guy--say a prison escapee--could take a family hostage and
where it could be hours (in parts of Alaska, even days) before a SWAT
team could be assembled.  If local residents, fearing for the family,
conducted such an assault, can you doubt that the one who shot the woman
would be tried and certainly convicted?

Would that be fair?  Maybe not--I am not entirely unsympathetic to the
stress and problems of dangerous tactical situations.  But a very large
share of my outrage in this travesty is the blatant double standard being
applied here.  Another very large share of the wrath in my original post
is due to information you have only posted in rebuttal, namely that part
about the previously reliable informant.

As I understand it, most informants are criminals themselves who are basically
allowed to get away with minor crimes in return for providing information
on major ones.  Maybe that's a fair idea--we can squabble about it some
other time.  But any system that places trust in people MUST hold them
accountable OR THAT TRUST WILL BE ABUSED.

If the informant is not charged in connection with this raid, you have a
serious problem--you allege that he had a grudge against these people,
so he acted with malice.  Either your DA is the pond scum I think he is,
or you have a gap in your law that enables people to get away with murder.
(Yes, while I never have thought Tony was guilty of murdering the woman,
if the facts are as Rick presents, the informant may well be, IMHO.)

>The reason they got a no knock warrant was BECAUSE of the KIDS!  They
>knew the kids were in there and they were afraid that the kids would
>be used as hostages if the situation wasn't secured quickly.

Fascinating.  They placed so much trust in someone that is probably a known
criminal. . .

>>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!

>I never said that, now did I?  As it turns out, he was told to
>participate in a very delicate apprehension of a murderer/robber in a
>situation where potential hostages needed to be protected.  I suppose he
>could have quit his job, but he had no reason to believe otherwise.  If
>every cop quit their job every time they were put into danger or every
>time their actions could potentially endanger an innocent, we wouldn't
>have a police force.  Unless you are arguing that this would be a good
>thing, then your point here is meaningless.

It seems I am not the only one whose emotions sometimes lead to intemperate
statements.  In the light of your additional information, the incident
and Tony's eagerness to fire make more sense and the responsibility for
the woman's death moves more up the chain of command.  Based on the post I
was responding to, Tony's actions were bad and a Nurenburg defense _was_
being asserted.

I would still argue that Tony underestimated the delicacy of the situation--
snitches are not always reliable, and every cop I've talked to knows thi
I can understand better why Tony would react to the woman as a probable
threat--but I still think a cross-examination is needed to assure that
you are not being snowed.  After all, the cops are basically saying that one
cheap crook fooled them all; hardly a comforting fact, if true.  The people
deserve to know whether it is true or not, and no better system than the
adversarial jury system has been found to ferret out the truth.

>Perhaps I've lost some of my objectivity.  I shoot with some of these
>guys on a regular basis.  I get a very different account of what happens
>than I see in the media.  After hearing both sides of the story, I'm
>quite happy working for Boeing, thank you. I DON'T WANT their job.

Nor I.  Nor am I convinced that having police departments in necessarily a
Good Thing.  There are alternatives we have not tried.

>>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.

>If you really believe this, you have some serious problems.  Either that
>or you have a lot of growing up to do regardless of your true age.

Thank you for the diagnosis.  Based on the post and local experience,
I stand by the statement.  It may bear reexamination based on your followup
post, but a trial--the one the "criminal" justice system won't be
conducting--would make all that certain, wouldn't it?

>Poor Tony.  In a building where he has been told that there is a
>murderer loose.  Sees a shadow lunge for the kids, hears a shot, the
>shadow is down and now he is trying to figure out what is going on...
>Try it yourself sometime.  And regardless what you think, it WASN'T a
>criminal invasion.

Poor Tony.  Trusting criminals.  Shooting without a clear threat.  Yes it
was a tough situation.  I must say how impressed I am by the professional
way it has been handled from start to finish.

>>God only knows how he'll react in other stressful situations--like
>>writing parking tickets or crucifying jaywalkers.

>You people that sit in your arm chairs and make these sort of judgements
>would be funny if you weren't so scary.  What do you think YOU would
>have done?  As I told another poster, I have no doubt that you could be
>put into a (simulated) scenario where you would inadvertently cap your
>own mother.  If you don't believe this then you haven' tried it.

And as I said, cops screw up three times as often as us armchair quarterbacks.

Maybe you should think about why that is.

>Yes you are over the line.  You are looking for a scape goat and picked
>the least substantive one you could.  You are responding emotionally
>rather than rationally.

Ah.  So now I am to be shamed for expressing my emotions?  Ok.  Just
want to be sure I understand the rules.

I am not ashamed of feeling grief for an innocent family whose mother was
shot without provocation.  I am not ashamed for feeling justified fear
abnout the rising police state and the willingness of the public to bless
their excesses.

If you want to pile shame on someone, maybe you should start in Snohomish
(or whatever) county.

>You seem to feel that anybody doing their job should be crucified for
>any mistake they make.  Perhaps in your job people's lives don't hang in
>the balance with your every split second decision.  Bear in mind,
>Doctors and hospitals deal with life and death situations every day.
>They also kill about 160,000 people that wouldn't otherwise die every
>year.  Police are human too.  They make mistakes.  Sometimes when they
>make mistakes, people die too.  Consider if you ever need surgery:  The
>record of the police is probably better than your doctors.....

Held accountable != crucified.  Tony and the rest of the Keystone Kops
are not being held accountable.

Doctors, bus drivers, ship captains, and many others who make life and death
decisions ARE held accountable.  Cops are not.  It stinks.

What excuses will you make the next time?  For there _will_be_ a next time.

>>But you are part of the voting public that allowed this system to
>>entrench itself. . . .  I hope this bankrupts Seattle.

>You will pay too.  Do you think that our county will pay out of it's own
>pocket?  I'll be we're in the same insurance pool......

You seem phobic about anyone out there taking any responsibility for this
ghastly mess.

>Actually, you don't need to apologize.  Most of your arguments are
>emotional and appear to lack a real understanding of the way the real
>world works. As such, they are excusable.  You'll probably grow up
>someday.

Cute.  As wrong as most of the rest of your notions about responsibility
("If it's hard, you aren't responsible!  Honest!  You tried _realy, really_
hard, so it's ok if you screw up--everyone else would have, too!"),
but cute.  I've paid my dues and I know about how much you can trust cops
politicians, judges, DAs, labor, management, Congress, the IRS, the media,
and the rest of the power establishment.

You, on the other hand, seem to take your world view from Mr. Rogers.

>As it turns out, the major part of blame probably lies with a
>(previously) reliable informant that for some reason had it in for these
>folks.  I'm really at a loss as to what to do about it.

He should be one of the many criminal defendants in this unholy debacle.

>I've been convinced that under the circumstances the method was probably
>justified, I've been convinced that the police had every reason to
>believe they were correct in being there.

You seem to be an easy sale.  I have a trout farm in Death Valley you might
want to invest in. . . 

>Certainly there is some personal responsibility involved.  However, if
>you decided to hold your doctor to the same standard that you hold this
>public servant, you'd more than likely find that he'd refuse to touch
>you, even to TRY to save your life.  Think about it....

I have.  I do.  Why on earth don't you?

Bill
-- 
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