Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site whuxl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!orb From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics Subject: Re: Lethal force used by police Message-ID: <378@whuxl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 08:45:28 EST Article-I.D.: whuxl.378 Posted: Fri Nov 30 08:45:28 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 2-Dec-84 02:41:32 EST References: <3@vax2.fluke.UUCP> <259@spp2.UUCP> <365@whuxl.UUCP> <494@uwmacc.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Bell Labs Lines: 77 > Rick Keir writes in response to my suggestion to eliminate to > replace guns with tranquilizer devices: > (1) Policemen (and policewomen, and policethings in general) do not > carry guns as some sort of butterfly net to make it easy to > capture criminals. They carry guns as a way of killing people > who are about to try and kill someone else. The courts have long > taken a very dim view of shooting people simply for running away > when a policeman says "stop". That's why there is no training > to "shoot to wound" or "fire over their heads". If you point > a gun at someone you should be planning on killing them, because > it is very likely that's what you are going to do. Which is precisely why guns should not be used. > > (2) Do you really believe that TRANQUILIZERS are going to work all > that fast? I've worked with tranquilizers; they take a while > to affect the body, even when you inject them into a vein. > And tranquilizers are DANGEROUS; anything that is capable > of knocking you unconscious is capable of killing you. What > dosage should policethings carry? Enough for a skinny 14-year > old gang member, or for a 250-pound mugger? If there's a cop > near me, I don't want him or her thinking it's ok to shoot > someone with a tranquilizer when they are not an imminent threat. > I realize this is a technological problem. But I believe it can be solved with research and development. For example: isn't it possible to adjust the dosage of tranquilizers applied in some fashion? For example, one could have a variable ratio trigger which would cause more or less tranquilizer to be injected depending on the pressure applied. Or one could have minimal dosages which would require several shots to knock out a 300 pound person. And perhaps tranquilizers aren't the answer at all- perhaps some sort of beanbag device or an electric shocking device could work. I am not specifying exactly what mechanism would work. But surely our technology is capable of finding a way to knock somebody out and prevent them from killing someone without killing them. We have simply never thought of such a solution or worked towards it with any real effort. > (3) "Many innocent people killed by policemen". > Where? Most policethings retire without ever having FIRED a shot > at anyone, let alone having killed an innocent person, even in > New York City. In fact, the number of people killed by policethings > is quite small, and there are very few case of the person being > "innocent": the usual reason is because they are trying to kill > someone at the time they are shot. Where? In at least two of the towns I have lived in there have been tragic deaths because policemen shot people who were harmless. In Dunedin, Florida a 14 year old boy was killed in a school yard--policemen thought he might be robbing something and ordered him to freeze. The boy panicked and ran-- the policeman shot and killed him. The policeman was griefstricken when he found out he had just killed a 14 year old boy. But I don't think it was the policeman's fault, it was ours for not providing another means of apprehending felons or possible felons. In Bloomington, Indiana a football player was killed when he got into a tussle with police. They tried to wrestle him down but panicked and pulled their guns (he had no gun) when his strength overwhelmed them. The policemen ended up killing him. In both these instances a tranquilizer would have prevented the deaths. But such a device has applications beyond just the police. It could also serve as a much safer means of self-defense than guns. According to an article in Science '84 two-thirds of all homicides in the US are committed with guns. (December '84) Our gun homicide rate is 50 times that of England, Germany, Denmark and Japan. Science '84 also reported that accidental firearm deaths had been found in one study to be six times more likely than purposeful killings of residential intruders. So why do we glorify and sanctify the gun? > > It's always nice when someone destroys their own argument. Now it > becomes clear that you are merely WISHING we had some kind of technology > that could stop people without killing them. Phasers, right? :-) > I think we should do more than merely wish: we should be unequivocally committed to coming up with an alternative to the current killer, the gun, as a means of "self-defense". tim sevener whuxl!orb