From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 02:42:11 GMT

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:

>The kids didn't put a submachinegun into their hands and shoot an innocent
>woman to death, but he didn't see the police he has been raised to trust
>and rely on butcher his mother or aunt before his helpless eyes.

>I reckon the kids the kids feel *much* worse and have very little chance
>of ever really recovering from the trauma.  He, on the other hand, cannot
>possibly feel badly enough.

	I disagree.  Read on to find out why.

>>Did he do anything wrong?  Probably not, in my opinion.  At most he made
>>a very human mistake.  Perhaps not even that.  I've done enough role
>>playing and training to realize how quickly it happens.  Look at it from
>>Tony's viewpoint.  He has been told to storm this house that contains
>>vicious murderers.  He has been told that they are armed and dangerous.
>>If you think that you aren't going to go into that situation 'adrenalin
>>pumped' you aren't human or you have no knowledge at all of what really
>>happens to people under stress.

>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.

>I am sick to death of people whining about how tough it is to be a cop
>when their objective is to excuse the incompetence or bloodthirstiness
>of brutalizing or murderous scoundrels.

	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.

>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.

>"Poor Tony," wearing a bulletproof vest, carrying an SMG, executing a
>criminal invasion of peaceful people's home, startled by crying children
>into killing their Mommy.  Tough break for "poor Tony."

	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.

>>When that poor lady burst into the room, Tony didn't fire intentionally
>>and probably will never remember pulling the trigger.  No cover up, just

>If you are right about his not remembering, too bad:  he deserves to.

	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.

>>human psychology.  It is very unlikely that ANY of us would have reacted
>>much differently in the same circumstances.

>Wrong.  If I had decided that I had to be there--and I would not have on
>this kind of flimsy evidence, I'd have reconned the area and learned that
>children lived there.  And I resent the implication that because "poor
>Tony" is an incompetent, cowardly, triggerhappy mommykiller, that the rest
>of us are, too.

	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?

>There are enough in the Seattle PD and _criminal_ justice system to
>absorb the massive amount of guilt
>for this disgraceful debacle that is *not* "poor Tony's."  And you and the
>other posters are right that there is an enormous systemic fault here,
>a failure of the system of justice on a statewide scale that is as large
>ans as culpable in general as "poor Tony" is in specific.

>Heads should roll by the battalion.  Of course, having you locals say
>it's really ok, nothing all that bad happened--well, it doesn't sound like
>any good can come from it.  Worse, with all the covering up being done
>by paid stooges, it will probably make other departments even more likely
>to follow the Darryl Gates West Coast School of Police State Tactics.

	Add mine to the voices decrying thos outrage!

>This doesn't mean that I think this
>>situation should have happened or that I don't think there is an
>>appropriate place to put the blame.  I just happen to think that placing
>>all or even a significant portion of blame on Tony is stupid, short
>>sighted and ignoring the real issues.

>Sorry, Rick--I'm going over the line, and I do not want to.  But you
>absolutely cannot exonerate the guy in the trenches.  Until *everyone*
>in this once wonderful country takes personal responsibility for their
>actions, we will never reverse the tide of decay rising around us.

	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.

>"Poor Tony" shot and killed that woman.  No one else did it.  He is a
>grown man sworn to defend a constitution he probably has not even read.
>He allowed himself to be put into that position and allowed himself to be
>deceived that what he was doing was ok.  He has to be held accountable--
>and every single piece of used food in the chain of command on that
>Godforsaken raid must be similarly held liable.

>Otherwise, you will see more, and worse, and wonder why.

	I agree, though my orders were never so vague.  I do wish to
wonder whether it was murder 1, as you imply, or manslaughter.  There
is a difference your post seems to take no notice of, and given the
situation I feel it an important difference.

>>Remember, each of you.  Any time you permit these 'storm trooper'
>>tactics be used for any reason, YOU are partially at fault.  The blame
>>extends to some extent to each of us.  I feel fairly safe in stating
>>that this situation resulted from gross violations of reasonable police
>>operating procedures and the constitution itself.

>But you are part of the voting public that allowed this system to
>entrench itself.  It is you and your fellow citizens who *must* pay the
>damages to this family, and I hope for *my* family's sake that it sets
>a new indoor record.  I hope your cops cannot afford new cars, or shoes, or
>patrol cars for fifty years.  I hope your judges never get another pay 
>raise.  I hope your streets rot to muddy potholes and your taxes are
>the highest in the world.  I hope this bankrupts Seattle.

	I don't go that far -- I just hope it causes new procedures.  It
is nt fair to make one cop's mistake paid for by an entire city.

>Maybe then the citizens of Seattle will awaken and reassert themselves and
>take their rightful authority back from the usurpers.  It would be a bargain
>for you, even at that price.

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

	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.

<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. >