From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:43:08 GMT

In article <viking.714110410@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>	As for the police, most have my respect, and SWAT teams have my
>respect, but like any group there are individuals I don't respect.  Tony
>may be one of them, or he may be innocent of intentional wrongdoing.  I
>prefer to let those who are fully informed decide.

     If I were to cause somebody's death with a firearm I would wind
up in court, propably on some sort of homicide charge.  If it were anything
like what has been described above it would probably be at least
murder two, and maybe murder one.
 
     Any non-police officer in anything remotely resembling this situation
would probably at least spend a few nights in jail before being put out
on bail and would have to live with at least having been arrested and
tried on a murder charge for the rest of his life.  Honest citizens acting
in self-defense often have to endure a murder trial.  This should at least
extend to the police.

     Let a jury be fully informed and let them decide.  The police should
function under the same laws as the rest of us do.

>>Sorry, Dan.  The tactical situation is not presented well, but even the
>>Village Idiot would evacuate neighbors and ask them if they knew about the
>>occupants of the house.  If "poor Tony" was on a SWAT team that didn't do
>>even things that basic, then he was criminally negligent and deserves to
>>be tried and convicted for his part in this tragedy.
>
>	I can think of a problem with this: first, 9mm doesn't penetrate
>houses that easily, so evacuation of neighbors is a good idea, but not
>necessary in light of: evacuating neighbors might be seen as tipping off
>the occupants of the house, so they would be ready and prepared.  Ask
>any general and he'll tell you suprise is half the battle.  

     The police are not the military.

>Were I to storm
>a house, I don't want a barricade and concealed firing to greet me.  I'd
>rather suprise them.  I suspect Tony's superiors contemplated this.  If
>they didn't, they are at fault for reckless endangerment.

     But we'll never know, because neither Tony nor his superiors will
ever be brought to trial to explain their actions.  They can hid behind
policy and police business.  
     A woman is dead.  "Oops" is not enough.  Somebody sent a group of
armed men into a situation that put innocent civilians in danger, apparently
even unaware there were innocent civilians to *put* in danger.
     Those men should at minimum be called to explain their actions, and
charged appropriately if they don't measure up.  Refusing even to *charge*
this man says that the police can screw up however they want and don't
have to worry about it.  They aren't personally responsible.

>>Then where would we find fit juries for such people?  Oh, I get it!  We let
>>the POLICE make the judgements about whether the POLICE used excessive force
>>or were criminally negligent!
>
>	No, I didn't say that.  However, we are full of Vietnam and Korean
>War veterans who have done just this, and there are also expert witnesses
>available who can tell a jury exactly how it feels to be under fire, and
>how the thinking process becomes crystal clear, and how anything that moves
>is a target until confirmed otherwise if you wish to bother.  

     I do not deny that conditions "under fire" can be hazardous.  However,
storming a house with sub-machine guns should not be the first thing done.
The police used over-whelming force irresponsibly.  If Tony is not 
responsible then his superiors are.
 
     But they're not going to be charged either.  The know they can kill
someone and be totally immune to the consequences.  How many of us here could
even kill someone invading their own *home* and not expect to be brought
up on charges?  It's standard procedure in many jurisdictions to "let
the jury decide" if someone was acting reasonably.

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:19568 talk.politics.animals:7251