waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <93108.025818U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody.  You >give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in their >action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My question is >what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops or should you >collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and get out of there >(provided of course you don't think that you have been seen)?  For me, it would be an obvious choice: Armed self-defence is clearly and strongly protected by the Colorado Constitution and the laws of the state. In the very clear-cut situation of your hypothetical, I wouldn't have anything to fear from the police (unless I had been publicly carrying the weapon concealed, something I'm not in the habit of doing... Even then, the worst I'd have to deal with  was a class 2 misdemeanor.) Even if the situation were not so clear, and I might have to worry about arrest for manslaughter or homicide, it would still be safer to wait for the police. If I were to leave and try to avoid police involvement, I'd be committing several felonies and ruining my chances of claiming self-defence in court ("If it really was self-defence," the prosecuter would ask, "why did you run away and hide from the police?")  In other states, however, this decision might not be so clear-cut: If someone in, say, Washington D.C. were to use a gun in self-defence he would _automatically_ be guilty of several felony violations of that city's gun control laws. Such a person's choices would be between certain conviction for a couple of felonies versus possible conviction for half a dozen.
In article <C5y36B.8MG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes: > >For me, though, the black soot billowing outside the compound added with >how fast the fire spread ponted to *someone* dousing large parts of the >compound with some sort of gasoline or fire-starter.  Just from experience, seeing a couple of houses burn down, one doesn't need any accelerant to get a lot of black soot.  There's plenty of stuff in a house that will burn 'dirty'.  Even the asphalt shingles would make a really sooty smoke.
In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>, <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes: > I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors, > but here goes: >  > Monday, 19 April, 1993 13:30 EDT >  >                     MURDER  MOST  FOUL!! >  > CNN is reporting as I write this that the ATF has ignited all > the buildings of the Branch Dividian ranch near Waco, TX. The > lies from ATF say "holes were made in the walls and 'non-lethal' tear > gas pumped in". A few minutes after this started the whole thing went up. > ALL buildings are aflame. NO ONE HAS ESCAPED. I think it obvious that > the ATF used armored flame-thrower vehicles to pump in unlit > napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it. >  > THIS IS MURDER! >  > ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!! >  > THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN! >  > I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see > it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was > still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left > alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won. >  > I REPEAT, AS OF THIS TIME THERE ARE **NO  SURVIVORS**! >  > God help us all. >  >  > PLEASE CROSSPOST -- DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THE SLAUGHTER OF THE CHILDREN! >  >  > W. K. Gorman - an American in tears.  Flame on!!  Is this guy serious????  If he would ever really pay attention to the news (oops I forgot that the media    for the most part loves to jump right on top of a story before all the facts     are known, as well as to manipulate what we see and thus what we believe).     Any ways one of Koresh's DEVOTED followers that DID I REPEAT DID survive this    "GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE".  Besides there are nine     survivors in the burn-unit of the local hospital and was reported that David    was in one of the towers when the shit hit the fan.  Besides, a majority of     these children were children that he was supposed to have been the father of,    this then makes them bastard children to a sacraligious zeloit (sp).  Also    someone should have told David and his followers that if they can't the heat    then they should stay out of the kitchen!! (pun intended)  Flame off  " Aaah Daniaalson yah wanna fight,  fight me!!"
mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) writes:  >st922957@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:  >:Just because someting was good once, does not mean it will be forever.  >Yes, gone are the days when you can leave your house unlocked at night. >Well, it couldn't last forever.  	For the record, it wasn't until I came to college (excluding the times I went to Omaha or Council Bluffs for something) that I ever removed the keys from the ignition of my car!  Come to think of it, it was only after I moved to Ames, Ia (pop 45K) that I ever took to locking my doors at night.  	I've discovered that $50K/year isn't worth living in fear all day.  I might just move back to the farm.  	This weekend is Veishea.  You know, when ISU students riot for no apparent reason.  This year, we've the Farm Aid concert to add to the festivities.  Anybody bet me there's another riot? Remember, Iowa law has three guys talking loud defined as a riot. Stay tuned for an on-the-scene report this weekend.
As quoted from <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu:  > The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against > you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !  Kind of sounds like Plessy v. Ferguson, huh?  Of course as in that case, things change, huh?  > Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions > are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will > be as safe as possible. Such as it is ... >  No, if your little fantasy comes to pass, the country will have gone TOWARD the KKK.  You're of course being a little disengenuous.  Violent solutions are never passe FOR THE GOVERNMENT and CRIMINALS (who frequently) cannot be distinguished).  "Avoid situations which encourage criminals"?  You mean don't be a woman? Don't be Black?  Don't be gay?  I'm quite certain that having a surfeit of unarmed victims will discourage your beloved KKK from engaging in "violent solutions"....
In article <1993Apr21.223541.2353@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:   >Everyone is complaining about the debacle in Waco. It is hard to >understand all this angst. What happend there is nothing less than >what we wanted to happen. Why all the sour grapes ?          Cute word angst.  Conveys volumes.          I'd be interested in this particular definition of "we."  It's such a fluid pronoun.   >BATF was looking for a propaganda event to counteract their impending >budget cuts ... the attendance of the press at the initial big >commando raid is proof. It would have been ever so easier to grab >Koresh and his central followers as they shopped in Waco. Alas, no >propaganda value there. > >The FBI screwed-up big time, all the time. They should have never allowed >the situation to drag out like that. A quick second assault, before the >BDs could decide on a strategy, would have been the better plan. > >The BDs themselves were the biggest screw-ups though. They imagined >that US law and US law-enforcement had no jurisdiction within their >little 'country'. WRONG !          The BD were a paranoid little cult out in the middle of nowhere, which all of a sudden had their worst paranoid fears reinforced.          Joy.   >They had no right whatsoever to fire on >the BATF, and if they mistook their identity initially, they should >have surrendered at once when they did realize who they were.          Yes, they probably should have, although how many paranoid nuts can say they held off the feds for 51 days?   >If the >BDs had a problem with the warrants, they take it to court, just like >the rest of us. If they wanted full-auto weapons, they could have >obtained the proper permits, just like the rest of us would need to >do. What they may NOT do is decide for themselves what US law applies >to themselves and which does not. They get their chance like the rest >of us - at the voting booth.           The voting booth is highly over-rated.  People need to get up off their lazy butts more than every year or every two years.  Hell, most don't even do that.   >If the BATF and FBI have become latter-day Gestapo, then they have >become that way because WE have desired them to be so.           No, because "we" have decided that it doesn't make enough difference to "us" to get up and do something.  That's something, for instance, a lot of people who go speak against gun control bills at their local government.  Dozens of "pro-gun" speakers show up and few if any antis do, but  they often win anyway.           Why?  Because it doesn't matter who shows up, it matters who's willing to scream afterwards.  And it isn't that most people give a damn one way of the other, but that they don't.  Nobody gives a damn about anybody beyond their own little worlds.   >We get to >vote on laws, and on the lawmakers. By our choices over the years, >we have approved the creation and form of the BATF and FBI. When >the FBI was out chasing 'pinkos', the general public didn't seem >to mind a bit of extra-constitutional activity.          The general public's usually not even read the constitution. And what they have learned is a distorted picture of the whole thing.
In article <C5yEAB.HAC@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)   writes: > In article <1993Apr9.134525.21567@medtron.medtronic.com>   rn11195@medtronic.COM (Robert Nehls) writes: > >Kenneth D. Whitehead (kdw@icd.ab.com) wrote: > >: oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) writes: > > > >: > Questions for the media and the politically correct: > >: >  >   [...] > >: > If the people in the compound were black and the guys in ninja suits >  > Some of the Davidians *are* black. >  > Next question? >   Still thinking you have all the answers, eh?  >  > --  >   Jim -- jmd@handheld.com
.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland) writes: >	SUSPENDED POLICE OFFICER ARRESTED IN REVENGE TRIPLE HOMICIDE > >PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) -- A police officer afraid he would be fired for >allegedly assaulting a teen-ager walked into an auto body shop wher the youth >worked, said "You're going to die" and fatally shot him and two others, police >said. >A fourth youth was wounded.  A fifth escaped injury by hiding under a car. >Suspended police officer Robert Sabetta, 23, of Cranston, was arrested at >gunpoint over three hours after the shooting at Wilson's Auto Enterprises in >Foster, a rural town of about 4,000 people in northwest Rhode Island. >						Doug Holland > 	I think I have updated info on this.  My understandingis that former officer Cranston approached a teenager who was being questioned by another officer.   Officer Cranston struck Teenager A in the head with a heavy police flashlight, causing a significant, though not life-threatening.  THere is no evidence that Teenager A was doing anything threatening at the time.  Teenager A was released on bail/recognizance and filed a formal complaint against Officer Cranston.  The Police Chief suspended Cranston pending an  investigation into the use of excessive force.   	The above is pretty clear... but what seems to have  happened is this.  The Chief requested Cranston's gun, but Cranston refused to turn it over until the Chief went the Cranston's home  to get it.  Sources said Cranston had always wanted to be a cop and was very afraid of loosing his job because of the complaint against him. 	A few days afterward, Cranston allegedly walked into  Wilson's Garage, where Teenager A and friends were known to hang out and work on cars as a hobby.  Cranston fatally shot Teenager A as well as TEenagers B and C.  Teenager D was shot once in the shoulder/chest.  Teenager E was working under the car and was not noticed by Officer Cranston.  Teenager D went to a home and summoned police, who went to Wilson's Garage and found the  3 corpses and one unscathed survivor.
In article <C65E95.D7u@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes: >In article <1993Apr27.071223.3508@uoft02.utoledo.edu> steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner) writes: >>James P. Dusek (dusek@rtsg.mot.com) writes: >>> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes: >> >>> 	They did, they used CS that would NOT harm children. >> >>i REALLY hope you're being sarcastic here, but i've seen so many  >>stupid things said in complete seriousness that it's hard to tell  >>without a smiley. >> >>do you actually believe there's a CS gas that can discriminate based >>on the age of the target? > >Yes, the gas used was a mild concentration or formulation compared to >the 'heavy duty' stuff.
In article <DLB.93Apr15130411@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes: >For what it is worth, I own no firearms of any sort.  As long-time >readers of this group know, I am dedicated to the RKBA.  A long-time reader of t.p.g, I am also a staunch RKBA supporter, yet I own no firearms.  >This is not about toys.  It is about freedom.  Amen, brother.  -- Nicholas Sylvain (sylvain@netcom.com) --- I am the NRA
In article <blake.70.735413837@nevada.edu> blake@nevada.edu (Rawlin Blake) writes: >I was hoping that Kent State taught us a lesson. > >Apparently not. > >Apparently the government will murder anyone they choose to still.  That's right.  Despite claims that someone at Kent State fire a shotgun at the the soldiers, the only projectiles that anyone can prove where sent in the direction of the soldiers were rocks.
In article <1ra073INNcgu@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes: >  > I tend to agree, but I would like a better explanation of why the FBI stopped   > the firetrucks at the gate.  I saw this in realtime.  It concerns me that the   > FBI "appeared" to not be too interested in stopping the fire after it started,   > and actually started flying hueys around the compound, which had to add in some   > small part to the winds driving the fire. >  > Jim > -- I understand fire trucks had been at the site for several weeks but were sent home three or four days before the assault.  Can anyone confirm this?
paull@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Robert Paull) writes:  >Mr. Nice Guy (rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote: >: The Branch Davidians were not violent and were not planning to start >: violence. >:   >: When the BD compound was assaulted by the ATF the BD did fire back. >: But they agreed to a cease fire and they allowed the ATF to care for >: their wounded.  The BD even released the ATF agents they captured.  It >: is clear from the release of the agents and allowing the ATF medical >: attention that the BD were not looking for trouble.  >  This is the first I've heard of the BD capturing and releasing ATF agents. >Is there any more info about this?  >Rob P.             It was filmed the day of the first assault.  The BDs clearly allowed the BATF agents who were shot and wounded to leave the compound.  The lesson, I suppose is that you should keep shooting untill ALL the pigs are dead and then get the fuck outa dodge. Never give a pig an even break.
mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman) writes:  >In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>, <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes: >   "GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE".  Besides there are nine  >   survivors in the burn-unit of the local hospital and was reported that David >   was in one of the towers when the shit hit the fan.  Besides, a majority of  >   these children were children that he was supposed to have been the father of, >   this then makes them bastard children to a sacraligious zeloit (sp).  Also >   someone should have told David and his followers that if they can't the heat >   then they should stay out of the kitchen!! (pun intended)  I guess you need to be reminded of some things!  Have you ever heard of the First Amendment?  I guess not.  It isn't a crime to be a religous (I know you said "sacraligious", but it isn't your place to judge his religion) zealot in this country.  REMEMBER we have freedom of religion in this country! I guess you are selective in that respect!  So what if they were "bastard" children.  They were CHILDREN!  Do you condone their deaths?  I pray for your lack of a soul if you do!
Ah yes, I see a few liberal weenies have come out of the woodwork to defend the burning of the children. Probably drooled all over themselves while watching the TV coverage.  Probably had a few like that in Nazi Germany, as well.
In article <1r24bv$dif@apple.com>, earlw@apple.com (Earl Wallace) writes:  > >The Koreshians rubbed themselves out.  Neither Mormons nor Jews have a > >propensity for dousing themselves with kerosene, so I'm not particularly > >concerned.  (Or shall we blame Jim Jones on the government also?) > >...  It is silly to make this statement.  Fifteen minutes after the fire started, the "official word" out of FBI  headquaters in DC was that the DV's committed suicide.  It would seem logical that the lantern story has more credibility.  You can't even to pretend to know for sure what happened... although Clinton is doing just that.
feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes: ><34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes: >>In article <1r2d2rINNa7e@hp-col.col.hp.com>, dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff) says: >>>NUT CASE PANICS!!REALIZES HE'S MADE A COMPLETE FOOL OF HIMSELF IN FRONT OF >>>THOUSANDS OF NETTERS!!!BACKS AWAY FROM EARLIER RASH STATEMENTS!!!!GOD HAVE >>>MERCY ON HIM!!!! >I thought we were discussing Koresh here, not President Clinton. >Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: > > Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set  > by cult members.  Correction: The *FBI* *says* that two of the nine who escaped said the fire was deliberately set by cult members.  Since the press was kept miles away, we have absolutely no independent verification of any of the government's claims in this matter.
I HATE long postings, but this turned out to be rather lengthy....   Overall Crime rate: It fell....just like that...  Acquiring weapons in Norway: You can buy (almost) all kinds of weapons in Norway, BUT you must have a  permit, and a good reason to get the permit.... If I would like to have a handgun, i would have to get an gun-licence from  the police and to be a member of a gun-club. The police would check my criminal records for any SERIOUS crimes and/or records of SERIOUS mental diseases. Now, if a got my licence, I would have to be an active member of the gun -club for 6 months BEFORE I could collect my gun. It's a little like getting a drivers licence isn't it ??? You have to prove that you CAN drive before you are allowed to...  Use of guns in crimes (in Norway): Some crimes are commited with guns that have been in the owners 'arms' for a long time, but these are rather the exeption. Most criminals accuire guns to use them in crimes, and mostly short  time befor the crime.  Use of knives: It IS allowed to cary knifes in public, but not in your belt or 'open'. You (Americans) think it's ok to have a gun, but not to carry it open in public -rigth ??  Scandinavians ARE 'aggressive': We northeners are not as hot-livered as southeners, but when we decide to take action we DO. Ask ANY historian or millitary with an knowledge of europe.... (Or ask any German who served in Norway in WW2.....)  Individual vs masses: Yes the individual is more important than the masses, but only to some extent.... Your criminal laws are to protect the individuals who makes the masses ?? What happens when the rigths of some individuals affects the rights of  all the others ??   The issue: I believe the issue is GUNS, and gun-legislation. We shouldn't mix weapons and items that can serve as one.... IF i lived in Amerika I would probably have a gun to defend myselfe in HOME. But should it have to be like that ?? Do you think it's wise to sell guns like candy (some states do...) ?? If you believe it's smart/neccacery to have drivers-licence WHY do you think it should be free to buy guns ??  Disclaim-her: I'm not a pacifist or anti gun.  I would defend my home, loved ones and country, but I don't view guns as neccities or toys. I HAVE done army service, and HAVE used a variaty of weapons, but wouldn't want to have one for self defence or because they 'feel good'....        	This is not a .signature. 	It's marly a computergenerated text to waste bandwith 	and to bring down the evil Internet.
In article <C5L480.K7u@elite.intel.com> dgw@elite.intel.com (Dennis Willson)   writes: [..] >  > On February 28, 1993, the special agents attempting to serve the > Federal search warrant were all dressed in apparel clearly identified > with the letters "ATF" and a highly visible police-type badge. > Additionally, the special agents announced who they were and their > purpose for being at the compound. >  > Immediately following this announcement, gunfire erupted from the > compound, resulting in the deaths of four ATF special agents and the > wounding of several others.  Through no fault of ATF, the element of > surprise was lost, which caused the tragedy.    This statement simply amazes me!  "Through no fault of ATF, the element of   surprise was lost"!  What element of surprise?  In the paragraph preceding this   one, he said "... the special agents announced who they were and their purpose   for being at the compound", which was to serve the federal warrant.  No element   of surprise was even needed for that.    No, the element of surprise that they lost was that needed for a preemptive   first strike, without warning.    > Inasmuch as the warrants > remain sealed by a U.S. magistrate, and the investigation remains in an > active ongoung status, we are prohibited from disclosing any further > information at this time. >   Read: They need to wait until they see how it comes out before they fabricate   anymore, which could get disproven.  > We hope we have been responsive to your letter.  Please let us know > whenever we may be of service. >  >                           Sincerely yours, >  >                           Daniel M. H??l??tt  [can't make out signature] >                           Deputy Director  As always, no facts, just my opinions/observations.  Jim -- jmd@handheld.com
irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes: :glenns@eas.gatech.edu writes: :>Hey, gang, it's not about duck hunting, or about dark alleys, :>it's about black-clad, helmeted and booted troops storming :>houses and violating civil rights under color of law.  :> :>Are YOU ready to defend YOUR Constitution? : :Its also about crazy fatigue clad survivalist types blasting the  :snot out of people who accidentally stray onto his land in the :name of 'self defense.'  Well, the count is now at least 86 dead by government action.  How many have been killed in the last year in the manner you described?  What, no facts?  Oh, how silly of me; I forgot, you don't like guns, so you don't need no stinkin' facts.   :Don't get too self-righteous, Mr. gun-toter.  Don't get too smug, Mr. gun-hater.   Mike Ruff