HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jimh@pacdata.uucp (Jim Harkins)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: Pacific Data Products
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:41:03 GMT

In article <t7fnqb+.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>>   Thus spake jimh@pacdata.uucp (Jim Harkins):  (thats me)
>>
>>   >If I'm holding a gun on somebody
>>   >and they come at me I'll shoot.
>>   >I don't care if they're armed or not.
>>
>>	   Anyone who would shoot down an unarmed 100 lb mentally ill woman
>>   (which you just said you would do) needs therapy, not firearms!
>
>	Re-read the statement I was responding to - Jim specifically
>states he would shoot them WHETHER THEY WERE ARMED OR NOT!

I specifically stated that I would shoot anyone who came at me when I was
holding a gun on them.  If I'm holding a gun on them then I'm worried for
my life.  Do you really expect me to stand there like an idiot and let
a lunatic take my gun away so they can (possibly) shoot me with it?  Homey
don't play that game.  Because holding a gun on someone isn't a game.

You want a dose of reality?  Go borrow someones gun.  Go buy a tomato.  Go
out to the range and shoot said tomato.  Think of a person instead of the
tomato.  This should sober you up real fast.  Guns are not toys.  If I'm
holding a gun on you we aren't playing Dirty Harry in the movies.  If someone
is shot they won't be getting up.  I don't intend to be the one to get shot.
I own a gun because I woke up one morning with a leg coming in through my
bedroom window.  I was not happy waiting 15 days for my gun.  If you are too
chicken to protect your own life, fine.  Don't expect me to let some nutcase
take mine away from me.

jim

-- 
Lawyers Creed:  What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Harkins                         [ucsd|uunet]!pacdata!jim
Pacific Data Products               jim@pacdata.com
--------------------------------------------------------------

Xref: sparky ba.politics:4802 alt.activism:15494 ca.politics:7085 talk.politics.misc:42150
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:29:37 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <64717@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:

> What do
>all you activist have to say about this character?

I tend to think that anyone who is willing to die for people's park
is a nutcase.  In the grand scheme of all the things that are fucked up
in this world, people's park is not really high on my list.

>Related - other activists are calling for everyone to burn down LA
>again if the attackers of Reginald Denny are convicted, calling Denny's
>blood the justified reaction to oppression.
>
>Anybody out there agree with these nutcases?

I tend to think that this is a far more emotional issue than People's Park.
This will not be activists rioting, it will be the disenfranchised rioting.
I am not in a position to judge their rage.


Jeff
-FWA
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Aug28.213331.9127@pacdata.uucp> <m9dnzfm.adamsr@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 15:49:14 GMT

In article <m9dnzfm.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:

   Thus spake jimh@pacdata.uucp (Jim Harkins): 

   >Nice to know you've got an open mind on this.  If I'm holding a gun on somebody
   >and they come at me I'll shoot.  Probably 15 times before stopping for 1.2
   >seconds to reload.  I don't care if they're armed or not.  If they're crazy
   >enough to attack then god knows what they'll do if they get my gun away.
   >And if you think I'll take the chance of losing the gun to a 100 pound 
   >lunatic then your elevator doesn't quite reach the top floor.
   >
	   What a perfect demonstration of a need for gun control!

	   Anyone who would shoot down an unarmed 100 lb mentally ill woman
   (which you just said you would do) needs therapy, not firearms!

Unarmed?  Unarmed?  What was the machete for?  To cut a tough steak?

Xref: sparky ba.politics:4891 ca.politics:7244 talk.politics.misc:42863
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,rec.martial.arts
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:55:38 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug30.051305.1235@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <11973@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>She had a machete.  That's adequate.  Policemen are badly injured 

>And he had a PK-24. That's a metal baton with a side handle, designed
>to be used for blocking blows, among other things. You grip the side
>handle in your fist and the entire length of your arm is protected
>by the metal baton. Blocking a machete with that ought to be a piece
>of cake.

Phil, what you describe is similar to a tonfa.  I've used a pair of
tonfa against an opponent with a bamboo katana.  You can block really
nice.  On the other hand, your opponent can crack you really good too.
When you are dealing with edged weapons there are very few sure things and
the difference between a 100 pound woman and a 200 pound man is much
smaller than you might think.  I've added rec.martial.arts to the
discussion so some more people with real experience can explain this.

>I believe he was operating alone and was surprised by her. Wouldn't
>it have been prudent to operate in pairs, two cops watching each
>other's backs so they don't have to immediately use deadly force?

It is unlikely that this would have worked.  Chances are that the cops
had guns pulled - after all, they knew they were going after an
intruder and had no reason to think that he (the vast majority of
intruders are 'he's) was not armed with a gun.  In such a situation
there is no time to pull out a baton and block with it.  The only
difference is that with two cops she would probably have gotten twice
as many bullets.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4865 ca.politics:7201 talk.politics.misc:42682
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:55:07 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug27.201620.11624@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
> In article <64717@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
# #A 19 year old nutcase was shot after she attacked a cop with a machete
# #after breaking into the Chancellor's home in Berkeley. She had left a note
# 
# Considering that the Chancellor and his family had already been
# evacuated, I don't see why the cops had to kill her. She didn't even
# have a gun.  They should have just shot her in the kneecaps or used

She had a machete.  That's adequate.  Policemen are badly injured 
frequently, and occasionally killed, without a gun being involved.
Especially at a distance of a few feet, the only rational reaction
is to open fire.

# mace. I bet the cops in England could have handled it without
# killing Rosebud.

The fifth or sixth cop might have -- the first several would
probably be missing arms.

# I heard the cop who killed her has used excessive force in the past.

I read the cop who killed her had just returned to active duty
after being shot in a gun battle.  His reactions are not surprising,
inappropriate, or unjustified.

What is unjustified is the liberals whining that it was "cold-blooded
murder."



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 23:38:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake art@world.std.com (Al Thompson): 

>In article <m9dnzfm.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>
>   Thus spake jimh@pacdata.uucp (Jim Harkins): 
>
>   >Nice to know you've got an open mind on this.  If I'm holding a gun on somebody
>   >and they come at me I'll shoot.  Probably 15 times before stopping for 1.2
>   >seconds to reload.  I don't care if they're armed or not.  If they're crazy
>   >enough to attack then god knows what they'll do if they get my gun away.
>   >And if you think I'll take the chance of losing the gun to a 100 pound 
>   >lunatic then your elevator doesn't quite reach the top floor.
>   >
>	   What a perfect demonstration of a need for gun control!
>
>	   Anyone who would shoot down an unarmed 100 lb mentally ill woman
>   (which you just said you would do) needs therapy, not firearms!
>
>Unarmed?  Unarmed?  What was the machete for?  To cut a tough steak?
>

	Re-read the statement I was responding to - Jim specifically
states he would shoot them WHETHER THEY WERE ARMED OR NOT!

	I repeat - ANYONE who would shoot down an UNARMED 100 lb mentally
ill woman needs therapy, not firearms!

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan) 
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4841 alt.activism:15603 ca.politics:7159 talk.politics.misc:42512 talk.bizarre:27781
From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 28 Aug 92 03:25:55 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

actually, the filth shot three times.
guess she didn't crumple fast enough for his taste.

cunt.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant | i'm told his address has been circulated tho'   |
| poisoned electric head |              andrew_-_palfreyman@cup.portal.com |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 29 Aug 92 01:23:04 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <p56ui54@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >However, the answer should not be "shoot to kill." Again,
    >police should be trained to do otherwise. If they do not,
    >they should be investigated and if found to have used
    >unnecessary force leading to death, should be tried for
    >murder.

Then, we might as well disarm the police. When it became known that any
cop that shot someone would be tried for murder, it would kind of be an
open day on police now, wouldn't it?

However, this paragrapgh appears (??) to be from a classic position of
firearm ignorance -- the erroneous concept of shoot to wound.

A firearm is NOT a warning device, it is NOT a noisemaker, it is NOT for
brandishment. In general, do not draw your firearm unless you are going to
use it to STOP someobody.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:01:29 GMT

In article <390@vega.iii.com> rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins) writes:
>Has no one heard of her previous arrest record?  

Unless the officer in question knew it beforehand, it isn't relevant.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:07:08 GMT
Organization: QueerNet

In article <1992Aug31.221606.20561@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>Let me know when you figure out a way to get all the crazies and drug
>dealers off the streets and keep 'em off--with or without weapons.

Why?  I feel far safer in my neighborhood when the "crazies and drug dealers"
are on the streets than when the cops are...
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:36:49 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <1992Aug29.135549.21386@tc.cornell.edu>, Melinda Shore writes:

>>Claytoon, the Great Net Libertarian, believes that people
>>only deserve their constitutional rights if they're
>>popular.  He'd really prefer that he gets to be arbiter,
>>but failing that he'd like to put everyone's rights up for
>>popular vote.

Melinda, you call him a "Libertarian," and then you state that he doesn't
support full constitutional rights.  That's a contradiction.  If he really
does selectively apply the Bill of Rights, then he's not a libertarian (with
either a large L or a small L).  Sorry to nitpick, but I don't want
to see libertarianism smeared like that.

Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
***********************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist Paper #51
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:03:03 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <390@vega.iii.com>, rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins) writes:
> Not that I support deadly force, but *why* is everyone whineing about the
> police's use of deadly force and not about the deadly force that was being
> used against the officer?

A few of us have remarked on that point.

> Has no one heard of her previous arrest record?  

This depends on whether or not the police knew who they were dealing
with 8before* they started searching the house.  If the cop in
question didn't know (which is rather likely), then it doesn't matter.
If he *did* know, then he'd likely know some of her arrest
history--which points to a willingness to engage in violence.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:11:58 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Sep1.182747.11402@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>> 1.  The police are not properly trained in the use of force, either
>> lethal or non-lethal.  
>
>Probably true.  Are you willing to see your local taxes rise enough to
>provide the training?

Yes... I would pay to have a police force which is trained, rather than one
which is untrained.  Also, I know that cops are trained... What the hell
are they training them to do?


>> 1A. The police do not have a problem with using lethal force in an
>> unnecessary situation.  They have killed a woman in a situation
>> where she did not have to die.  People then defend the police operating
>> in this fashion.  
>
>This is a questionable conjecture.  Could the whole thing have been
>handled in such a way that she wasn't killed?  Probably.  There are
>probalby solutions that aren't even the result of 20-20 hindsight.

Okay... that is the point I wanted to make.

>What I've been defending is that--in the end part of the situation the
>cop in question had very few options.  He chose the one that appears
>to be the most sure way of keeping *him* alive.  I won't fault *that*
>decision.  You seem willing to second guess that critical decision.

Nope... I don't second guess him.  I want there to be more planning
from the begining.


>> 2.  The police staffing does not allow for proper numbers of police
>> in areas where it is necessary.  This is a tougher issue than the
>> first one, since I suspect that it is more of a budgetary constraint
>> than any other.
>
>Funny thing about that . . .  The question is again--are *you* willing
>to pay for the additional police?  (And are you willing to convince
>your neighbors to pay, too?)

Yes, I am... However, I want to see results for my money.  I am not willing
to pay more so that cops can be taught to kill, rather than subdue.


FWA
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4956 ca.politics:7330
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:06:56 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <394@vega.iii.com> rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins) writes:
>In article <12052@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>PR24.  It's plastic, not metal.
>It's Kevlar, not plastic.


Regardless of the material, it is a dangerous weapon.


Jeff
-FWA
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:51:01 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <94738@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <11909@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >You don't have to do business with "homophobes."  Therefore, it's
> >not a problem.  Stay away from us, we'll stay away from you.
> 
> "Stay of my God-given property, and I'll stay off yours. Peace through
> mutual fear and disgust. God's true will."
> 
> kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,

Alternatively, you can have war.  But I think you probably know
about Buchanan's speech on the subject.  You can choose to respect
the rights of others, and have peace, or you can continue the
campaign to tell consenting adults what they can do in private,
and empower people like Buchanan.  If that happens, the resulting
laws will be profoundly unpleasant, and make you look back wistfully
on an age when sodomy laws were being repealed, instead of passed.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:34:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.205052.18359@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:

>> Easy for you to say... My lover works at SF general in psychiatric
>> emergency (where they get their fair share of psychotic people).  They
>> have yet to have to kill someone to subdue them.
>
>Do they arrive, armed and loose?  Is your lover alone in a confined
>space?

Armed, sometimes... Last week, someone slipped through with a large
knife.  Loose?  Yes...  Confined space?  You have never been near a psych
ward, have you?

>> Tell me, what would
>> the police have done in England, where the cops do not use guns?  
>
>That officer would have died. 

Bullshit.  I don't believe for a second that a trained cop with one
of the handled billy clubs could not have stopped a crazy person with
a machete.   More so, two cops with clubs could certainly have stopped
her.  Why was this cop in a situation, where he knew what he was up against,
without backup?  Answer, because he knew in a pinch he could just kill
her.


You are rationalizing excessive force.


FWA
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4829 alt.activism:15565 ca.politics:7128 talk.politics.misc:42424 talk.bizarre:27709
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 18:59:17 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <p9b54j0@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >However, when the cops enterred that house, it did not have
    >to be a do-or-die encounter. If they knew they had an armed
    >crazy in the house, why didn't they send in enough people
    >that a cop did not have to operate on his own? Why did he
    >have his gun out rather than his club? Why was he alone?

We've already answered why the cop was alone. There are finite resources,
and, in Berkeley, a lot of weirdos.

Joeseph Waumbaugh, an LA cop turned writer (Onion Field, Choir Boys and more)
bases most of his books on his real life experiences. One story from
a factual basis he expanded on in a talk show.

There was this guy with both legs amputated that several times a year
would roll his wheelchair out on his front porch and masturbate. This
generally upset the neighbors and they'd call the cops. Well, this guy
had pretty strong arms and gace the cops a lot of grief each time they tried
to arrest him (bruising himnself and the cops a lot) so one time one
cop just bonked him on the head with a batton and made it a lot easier.

But some citizen saw and complained that cops were beating up helpless
people in wheelchairs. Can't have that now, right? So the watch commander
made sure that next time, take a dozen cops and make it clean and nice.

Of course, a dozen cops tied up for an hour or so takes a lot of law
enforcement off the streets, especially for one otherwise harmless
masturbator.

Well, the kook was ready for them next time. He had tied himself to some
heavy steel chains that were bolted into his porch ceiling. When the dozen
or so cops showed up next time, he proceeded to launch himself into the air.
His first swoop knocked one cop back off the porch and broke the guys
collarbone. He then broke another cops arm and blinded another cop in one
eye before they finally got him.


So put yourself in the cops place -- you only get called when there is
trouble, and there are a LOT of dangerous weird people in the world.

After all, what could be easier to handle than a legless man in a wheelchair?



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:16:20 GMT

In article <64717@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
>A 19 year old nutcase was shot after she attacked a cop with a machete
>after breaking into the Chancellor's home in Berkeley. She had left a note

Considering that the Chancellor and his family had already been
evacuated, I don't see why the cops had to kill her. She didn't even
have a gun.  They should have just shot her in the kneecaps or used
mace. I bet the cops in England could have handled it without
killing Rosebud.

I heard the cop who killed her has used excessive force in the past.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
A right delayed is a right denied.