Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp2.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull From: jhull@spp2.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics Subject: Bastille mentality alive and well in USA Message-ID: <286@spp2.UUCP> Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 18:46:38 EST Article-I.D.: spp2.286 Posted: Fri Nov 30 18:46:38 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 2-Dec-84 06:01:53 EST References: <3@vax2.fluke.UUCP> <259@spp2.UUCP> <365@whuxl.UUCP> Reply-To: jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) Distribution: net Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach CA Lines: 100 Xref: sdcsvax net.flame:6754 net.politics:5715 Summary: In article <365@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) responds: >> I think they probably feel like they are already involved in a war. >> When the courts seem more concerned with technicalities than with >> guilt or innocence, when convicted criminals are released again and >> again to repeat their crimes, where does the law-abiding citizen turn >> for relief or protection. Couple that with the current atmosphere >> regarding firearms and personal responsibility for self-defense and it >> just might seem like a victory that the death penalty (NOT capital >> punishment - that is a null concept) is once again being applied. >> >> jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull > >This is an old argument- because the accused rights have been granted >protection under the Warren Court decisions that criminals right and >left are being released due to "mere technicalities". However this is >not true. Criminologists and students of the legal system have found that >in fact only about one case in several thousand ever gets thrown out >because of "technicalities". ... Perhaps I did not make my statement clearly. >>1. When the courts seem more concerned with technicalities than with >>guilt or innocence, ... I refer here to courts of criminal jurisdiction whose job it is to decide the guilt or innocence of persons accused of felonies, not appellate courts whose responsibility it is to ensure the correct workings of the judicial system. >>when convicted criminals are released again and >> again to repeat their crimes, ... I refer here primarily to parole boards, not the courts. >>where does the law-abiding citizen turn >> for relief or protection. ... The problem of vigilante law raises its ugly head when the "common man" feels his institutions are not providing the services he expects from them. >>Couple that with the current atmosphere >> regarding firearms and personal responsibility for self-defense >>... >If we truly wished to protect ourselves from rampant violence we would enact >effective gun control laws. This comment is typical of people who wish to remove the basic means of self-determination from the body politic (I don't know if Sevener is one of these or not) and will tell any story, true or not, to accomplish that goal. To repeat a simple truth, guns do not kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. (No? Really? You mean to tell me that hammer built that house? (:-) Reducing violence in our or any society requires an education process in which people learn that violence will not be accepted by their peers as a solution to differences of opinion. >Rather than *protecting* themselves from >criminal violence, gun owners are more likely to be killed by the family >members and friends their weapons are supposed to protect than from >unknown criminals. It is quite true that a high percentage of violence in America today is perpetrated by people who know each other. This is directly due to the learned attitude that violence is an acceptable solution to problems. It is also true that people were killing each other long before guns were invented. The only difference a gun makes is that, with a gun, a person who is physically smaller and weaker has a much better chance of winning a violent argument than without a gun. >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. Here, I almost agree with Tim. I very much wish our society would press on to the development and deployment of non-lethal sidearms for our police agencies. We should then require the police to carry & use those non-lethal sidearms. The reservation I have is that I donot want to limit our police to non-lethal weapons if they are required to oppose criminals who are shooting at them with lethal weapons. Most ramifications & implications of this are fairly obvious, including rational approaches to statutes and penalties for persons assaulting police officers with lethal weapons. >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. Here I am in complete agreement with Tim. I deplore violence as a solution to interpersonal problems. I abhor initiating violence for any reason. But I am willing to use violence to defend myself and my family if I see no other way to protect us. I am quite willing to allow Tim or anyone else to make a different choice; I do not require anyone else to use violence for any purpose at all. But I am not willing for anyone to take from me the means to defend myself and my family. -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250