Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!rick
From: rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics
Subject: Lethal force used by police
Message-ID: <494@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Nov-84 13:56:33 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.494
Posted: Wed Nov 28 13:56:33 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Nov-84 07:04:36 EST
References: <3@vax2.fluke.UUCP> <259@spp2.UUCP> <365@whuxl.UUCP>
Reply-To: rick@maccunix.UUCP (Rick Keir)
Distribution: net
Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center
Lines: 60
Xref: godot net.flame:3288 net.politics:3288
Summary: Who are you kidding?

In article <365@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes:
 
 (various comments about gun control, criminals getting off due
  to "technicalities", and the "Bastille Mentality" discussion omitted).

>Personally I see no reason that policemen should have guns.
>They could accomplish the same objectives with tranquilizer guns --besides
>saving many innocent people killed by policement with guns ,tranquilizer
>guns would make policemen less hesitant to fire at fleeing suspects.
	Gee, three statements to disagree with in one sentence!  

(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.

(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.

(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.
	 
>Certainly it would be possible to develop such a device if our society put
>its mind to it.  But our society's only approach to violence is to promote
>further violence rather than applying ourselves to creative ways to actually
>*prevent* violence.
> 
>tim sevener whuxl!orb

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? :-)



-- 
"But Dinsdale...Dinsdale used  sarcasm!"
	we all know where this quote came from, don't we?

Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC
1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706

{allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick