Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 4 Sep 92 11:44:52 EST
 <1992Sep2.142259.3863@desire.wright.edu> <kyln=6p.adamsr@netcom.com>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <kyln=6p.adamsr@netcom.com>, adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
> Thus spake demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man): 
> 
>>In article <5zjnz_n.adamsr@netcom.com>, adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>>> Thus spake demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man): 
>>>>
>>> 	Sure. If anyone gets in your way, shoot the sucker!
>>
>>	I guess it says it all: someone attacking yo is merely "in your way".
>>
>>	Let's see, that would make murder "inconvenient" and rape "unpleasant",
>>eh?
>>
> 	You are the one willing to shoot the unarmed, not me. If you find
> killing people "inconvenient" they you are entitled to your rather bizarre
> definition.

	I am not "willing to shoot the unarmed", but "willing to defend myself,
with deadly force, if necessary".
	You are the one who is stating that someone attacking is merely "in
your way".

>>> 	Never mind that the person might be unarmed - if she is silly enough
>>> to "come at you" while you have that trusty steel phallus in your hand
>>> "proving" how macho you are, she deserves to die, right?
>>
>>	"Never mind if the person is unarmed?"  But that is the point.  Even
>>weaponless people kill.
>>
> 	Not very often compared to those with guns. An unarmed 100 lb woman
> may _hurt_ you, but she is rather unlikely to kill you - or, for that
> matter, to WANT to kill you. If she was homicidal she would probably own a
> gun!

	Like I've said before, unarmed 100lb women are not the issue.  Neither
are little green men from mars.

> 
>>> 	How Butch of you!
>>
>>	Please, some of us don't live by labels.
>>
> 	Funny - you enjoy applying them to others so much that I assumed you
> applied them to yourself as well. I retract my statement. You AREN'T butch
> or macho. Better?

	A little.

>>> 	Try explaining to a jury that you just shot an unarmed woman 15
>>> times because she "came at you" and watch how quickly you end up spending a
>>> rather extended time with men who don't NEED to wiggle their metal phallus
>>> to prove that they're macho. Let me know when it happens and I'll be sure to
>>> send you a gift to "ease" your transition to your new life style - a family
>>> sized jar of vasoline would seem appropriate.
>>
>>	:).  Verdict: not guilty.  Peple who fear they are in immenent danger
>>get to protect themselves, whether you or the criminals like it.  Sorry if that
>>makes you all frowny faced.
>>
> 	Try reading the law before you cite it. Unless you can PROVE that
> you were in danger from that unarmed woman - or anyone else for that matter
> - self defense is NOT a defense for homicide. Since you don't appear willing

	I do NOT have to PROVE I was in danger, merely that I *felt* and
*believed* that I was.

> to examine the matter from a common sense perspective, perhaps the following
> quotation from a text on Criminology will clarify the matter (if not, I'll
> be glad to provide the SC decisions as well):

	"Common sense"?  Let's sieze a term and proclaim moral high ground!

> 	"The law, however, has set limits as to what is reasonable and
> necessary self-defense. First, defendants must have a reasonable belief that
> they are in danger of death or great harm and that it is necessary for them
> to use force to prevent harm to themselves. For example, if Mary threatens
> to kill Jan but it is obvious  that Mary is unarmed, Jan is not justified in
> pulling her gun and shooting Mary. . . 
> 	Second, the amount of force used must be no greater than that
> necessary to prevent personal harm. For instance, if Steve punches Ben, Ben
> could no justifiably hit Steve with an iron rod. Ben could, however, punch
> Steve back if he believed Steve was going to continue punching.
> 	. . . Using force to defend one's property from trespass or theft is
> allowable if the force is reasonable. This means that the case of force
> should be a last resort after requests to stop interfering with the property
> have failed or after legal action has failed. Also, the use of deadly force
> is not considered reasonable when only protection of property is concerned.
> This is based on the social policy that human life is more important than
> property."
> 		Siegel, L. (1986). _Criminology_. St. Paul: West Pub. (44-45).

	In other words, nothing to dispute what I have been saying.  You're
assuming that even if the attacker was a midget wielding a water balloon that I
would shoot, but you're making erroneous assumptions.

> 	In other words, if you shoot someone, you better be able to PROVE
> that there were legitimate grounds to believe your life was in danger - not
> just that you feared being hurt.

	Wrong again!  I need only show that I believed I was in danger.  The
other part is about "sufficient force".  Thus the attacker need not be carrying
a gun for me to shoot them, I need only demonstrate that I felt that was the
only way I could stop them.

	Let's use your 100lb woman as an example:  If she were being attacked
by several 300lb men, would you consider her shooting them reasonable?

>>> 	The use of a firearm is justified (legally) ONLY when the individual
>>> has reasonable grounds to believe their life is in danger - and being
>>> attacked by an unarmed 100 lb woman  (unless you can prove that she is an
>>> expert in unarmed combat) very definately DOESN'T provide such grounds!
>>
>>	Gosh, too bad we're NOT talking about unarmed 100lb grandmothers, eh?
>>
> 	But when you state that you are justified in shooting ANYONE who
> attacks you armed or not, you ARE talking about 100 lb grandmothers, and
> children, and paraplegics, and . . .

	Wrong again!  I said I would shoot anyone if I felt it was necessary.

>>	But strawmen aside, the sex of a person, the weight of a person, the
>>mental condition of a person, do not need to be asertained beforehand.  All
>>that matters is that the victim feels that they are in danger.
>>	If I'm attacked, I'm in danger.  Period.  Whether it's by men with
>>steel phalluses or women with iron ciltorises.  (Clitori? :)
>>
> 	As I said, let me know when you act on that belief and I'll send you
> a gift for your new home!

	Active defense is usually not called for when passive defenses are in
place.  I use deadbolts, a dog and security lights.

	If anyone comes in past those, I can be reasonably sure that they are
not there to deliver girl scout cookies.

> 	Even Bernard Goetz was eventually convicted, and he was attacked by
> FOUR hoods he had REASON to fear, not by one individual who is not armed!

	He was not convicted of crimes against the youths, but for illegal
firearm discharge in the city.

>>> 	I agree. For a gun nut to stop at only four shots must be like
>>> coitus interruptus!
>>
>>	For a deranged *violence prone* lunatic to be stopped before killing is
>>like impotence!
>>
> 	And for a mentally ill woman to be subdued and disarmed without
> killing her is an act of humanity. I know the concept is difficult, but work
> on it and it will com to you!

	She *chose* to live by the sword.  I have no compassion for such
people when they die.  It's too bad no one in that Texas diner had a gun when
the mentally ill man killed dozens of people.

	Such compassion!

>>> 	Which is a pretty good reason for not storming the house rather than
>>> taking a more negotiatory tack. BTW, don't try to tell us how the mind of a
>>> mentally ill individual will respond - you don't have the knowledge to back
>>> your statement - if you did you wouldn't have used the term lunatic!
>>
>>	Given the extensive data on negotiating with lunatics on hand at the
>>time, I'm sure the officer should have told the woman to please stop attacking
>>while he thumbed through his manuals, eh?
>>
> 	No, given the extensive data on negotiating with the mentally ill,
> he should have stayed out of the building until qualified professionals
> (i.e., a negotiation team or a SWAT team) could affect an arrest.

	But they didn't.  While their tactics are debatable, their shooting of
the intruder is not.

>>> 	If there WERE potential hostages, I might agree with them storming
>>> the place, but the had been removed.  Try reading the facts of the case
>>> before arguing about it.
>>
>>	O, such a wound!  I feel  I can't continue, *sob*.
>>
>>	Don't be pathetic.  I have read reports.  The initial ones implied that
>>the people were still in the house.
>>
> 	But the police had access to the ACTUAL information, that the house
> was empty except for her AND that she was armed with a machete.

	And machetes don't inflict serious wounds?

> 	It doesn't really matter WHAT the initial reports you read contained
> - the police didn't base their behavior on those reports, but on the FACTS.

	Tell you what.  As a little thought experiment, put yourself in the
place of an armed person.  You're being attacked.  What do you do?  Do you wait
for serious injury before going for your gun?  Try to reason with the person
while they chop off your limbs?
	Pacifism only works when your attacker is willing to play that game.

	Ask the Kuwaitis what they gained by not resisting.

>>> 	The ONLY justification for not trying negotiation or non-lethal
>>> methods was to protect the Chancellor's house against property damage. Given
>>> that the police knew she was armed and could therefore accurately estimate
>>> the likelihood that she would be killed by a cop, the only reasonable
>>> conclusion which that leads to is that the property was more important that
>>> a human life!
>>
>>	The only reasonable conlusion is that when being attacked by machete
>>wielding lunatics, the police will shoot.
>>	Good thing, too.  Or there might have been two or three dead instead.
>>
> 	Or, they might have followed rational procedures and NO ONE would be
> dead.
> 
> 	Of course, since it was just a "lunatic" rather than a human being
> who was killed, it doesn't matter, right? 

	Evolution in action.  Better her dead (since that was her stated goal:
to kill or be killed, probably both) than innocent civilians or the police.

> 	Mental disorders are as much handicaps as blindness or paralysis -
> and as little subject to the victim's control. Does your bigotry extend to
> killing the blind and deaf, or do you limit it to those who suffer from
> emotional disorders?

	Once again, I must ask, if her disabilities were so great, why did not
her friends get her help?

> 	Incidently, an irrational fear of the mentally ill - such as you
> display - MAY indicate that the REAL fear is of personal insanity. Have you
> consulted a therapist? Or, better yet, accosted a police officer, lately?

	You're getting all frowny-faced again!  Bring out Mr. Sunshine!

>>> 	Who were these mythical "innocent people?" There was no one there but
>>> her until the cops stormed the place!
>>
>>	The police are innocent, or do you believe (like the Red Army Faction)
>>that simply wearing a unifiorm makes you a valid target for "execution"?  Or
>>that she should have been left alone inside to destroy the house?
>>	It is pretty obvious that she went inside with the intent to kill.  A
>>machete isn't exactly a protest banner.
>>	And if you "read the reports" you'll see that here associates clearly
>>stated that she believed and said many times that violence was an acceptable
>>method.  You live by the sword, you die by the sword (or machete :).
>>
> 	So what? All that means is that the police should have exercized
> caution in their dealings with her. She was confined to the dwelling. She
> was alone. There was no reason (other than to protect property) to storm her
> and risk her life OR the lives of the officers!

	That call is for the police to make.  Evidently they felt a house worth
several hundred thousand was something to protect.  Can't say that I blame
them.

> 	The police are _presumed_ to be both sane and professionals. For
> that reason, it is not unreasonable to assume that they are better able to
> deal with this type of situation w/o the use of deadly force than is the
> common person. Yet MANY of the psychiatric aides I've worked with would have
> been able to easily disarm the woman with - at worst - only MINOR injury to
> her.

	Perhaps she should have seen one before she went out to kill someone.

> 	Berkeley PD, btw, is generally acknowledged to have one of the best
> trained SWAT teams in the US. Why weren't THEY given control of the
> situation rather than permitting a violence prone Oakland cop to enter the
> building? Fear that the woman would damage some of the chancellor's precious
> property before they got there?

	You'd have to ask them.

>>> 	She attacked them because she was mentally disturbed, because she
>>> was terrified, and because she didn't (in her state) realize that
>>> alternatives existed.
>>
>>	Oh well.  That's exactly why she died, too.  It's not the role of
>>police to be therapists to people who can't handle reality.
>>	What about here friend?  If she was so deranged, they should have goten
>>her into therapy.
>>
> 	No, it ISN'T the role of the police to be therapists. Neither is it
> their role to be executioners. A cop - or anyone else - who would shoot a
> mentally ill individual when ANY reasonable alternative existed (as was the
> case here) is to obscene to be considered human.

	Not in my opinion.  It's really pathetic to whine about criminal's
rights, especially criminals who make it know that they want to kill.

	Or should we all lament Hitler's obvious mental problems?  Gee, if only
we had talked a while longer...

> 	As far as "getting her into therapy," try remembering what state you
> are talking about. Reagan closed down most of the mental hospitals while he
> was Governor as a tax saving measure, and Wilson has cut funding for mental
> health even more. There WASN'T any way to "get her into therapy" short of
> her arrest. Of course, since the therapy she would have received had they
> not executed her would have cost the taxpayers money, I have no doubt that
> you feel that it makes better sense, economically, for her to be dead.

	It's not the role of government to provide health care to everyone. 
IMO the only people they should be providing health care for are veterans and
public servants.

>>> More important is the question of why they attacked
>>> her, rather than trying for a non-lethal resolution to the situation.
>>
>>	Because they were attacked.
>>
> 	Sure. She came charging out of the house where she was confined and
> attacked them, right?

	No, they confronted her and she attacked.  Police saying "Halt! 
Police!" can hardly be considered "charging".

> 	You must have cheered when the cops beat the hell out of Rodney
> King, too!

	Nope.  You're batting zero.

>>	Man, it's like Saddam and Kuwait all over again.
>>
> 	Yup. A force of highly armed militaristic individuals stormed into a
> small confined area and shot down all opposition without negotiation.
> 
> 	Sounds about right to me.

	Yep, that's what happend when Saddam invaded.

> 	I'm done. I've made my point. Have fun getting in the last word, it
> will help you rebuild the macho illusion you feel such a strong need to
> project.

	Awww, don't go away mad, just go away!

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!