JOSH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (10/23/85)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 23 Oct 85 Volume 5 Number 44
Contents: No odd cops
Manufacturer Liability
Egg on Sandinista faces?
Cops
CS funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Friday, 18 October 1985 22:29:45 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: no weirdo cops
Weirdo public officials are rare, whether they are cops, school teachers, or
politicians. There is nothing special about police officers. Weird in this
case is defined as sharply at variance with community norm. A flaming
homosexual might get elected to the San Francisco city council, but don't
hold your breath waiting for it to happen in Pittsburgh. If we become a
nation of blue-haired punkers, we might see a blue-haired President (if we
haven't been overrun by the Russians first).
------------------------------
Date: 19 Oct 85 01:43 EDT (Sat)
From: _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS>
Subject: "Saturday Night Special" Liability
From: jeff at isi-vaxa.ARPA (Jeffery A. Cavallaro)
It is rather evident that more emphasis is being placed on liability
as a punitive weapon against handgun manufactures, rather than the
welfare of the victim.
I agree.
[This] suggests
a issue that has (in my opinion) plagued the American Legislative and
Judicial systems - the slippery-slope fallacy.
One could probably argue that SS is a necessary attribute of egaltarianism,
As this, I don't know. "Slippery slope," to me, is not a formal
fallacy, but a kind of argument involving deliberate omission of
intermediate causal steps in a rhetorical prediction. Like the
paranoid father who tells his daughter: "If you let him kiss you on
the first date, next you'll be the mother of six illegitimate
children and living on welfare."
I'm not sure I can see much slippery-sloping in the Kelley opinion,
and I'm not sure what the slippery slope has to do with equality.
_B
[Indeed, one big problem with the decision is that it leaves a
possible precedent to cases which are similar in all logic, but
due to the bad nature of the original case make horrible law--
though they do illuminate the specious nature of the desicion.
Consider that you might begin to sue the carmaker everytime
someone is hurt in an accident, with negligence irrelevant.
After all, each car is three times as likely to kill someone as
each gun, by overall statistics... --JoSH]
------------------------------
From: jeff@isi-vaxa.ARPA (Jeffery A. Cavallaro)
Date: 19 Oct 1985 1705-PDT (Saturday)
Subject: Re: "Saturday Night Special" Liability
> As this, I don't know. "Slippery slope," to me, is not a formal
> fallacy, but a kind of argument involving deliberate omission of
> intermediate causal steps in a rhetorical prediction. Like the
> paranoid father who tells his daughter: "If you let him kiss you on
> the first date, next you'll be the mother of six illegitimate
> children and living on welfare."
I believe that a statement such as "If we let Joe rob a bank, everyone
will rob a bank" is also an example of SSF. I don't believe that
"causal steps" from the innocent to the severe in a SINGLE context
is necessary for SSF. To me, it is more of "opening the floodgates"
in general.
> I'm not sure I can see much slippery-sloping in the Kelley opinion,
> and I'm not sure what the slippery slope has to do with equality.
My point (question) is basically -
When does "equal protection under the law" degradate into SS-ism.
If we apply this type of liability judgement in this case, do we have
to apply it in any vaguely similar case, regardless of absurdity? And,
if we apply such liability in extreme cases, is the brunt of the
liability being given equal protection?
An example:
There was a case in the Eastern U.S. (exact reference escapes me right now)
where a family built a fish pond on their property. The house was later
sold twice. The second family to own the house had a small daughter that
drowned in the fish pond. The original owning family was found liable.
The court decided that the first family had built a "dangerous fish pond".
This seems prima facialy stupid. But, if liability is applied to the
gun manufactures, can it not also be applied to the pond builders?
Jeff
P.S. If anyone knows a reference for the above described case, please
chime in.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 21 Oct 85 18:18:49-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: liability
I won't address the question of liability for victim welfare, since
I haven't thought much about it. I am not sure how much people
should be punished for the crimes of others. For instance, I
feel very strongly about drinking and driving, and I do feel
that hosts of parties have some responsibility to see that their
guests do not drink and drive. To serve drinks to someone you
know is about to get behind the wheel of a car and then do nothing
to dissuade that person from driving away is irresponsible, and
I would have no problem with punishing someone who did that. But
when I hear that hosts should be held responsible whenever their
guests drink and drive, I am not sure how a host can be expected
to prevent this. Are they supposed to be able to tell by looking
which guests are too intoxicated to drive? To monitor how much
each guest drinks? To not serve alcohol? Suppose the guest brings
alcohol that the host doesn't see, or sneaks into the host's liquor
while the host isn't looking, or has been drinking before coming,
too much to drive but not enough to show? I am not sure that even
the most conscientious host can absolutely guarantee that no one
will leave his or her house and drink and drive, and I would hope
that hosts who have done everything in their power to prevent this
would not be liable.
On the question of handguns, is the idea to assure that handgun
sellers take enough care about who they sell guns to? Or is it
an indirect way of discouraging anyone from selling handguns
at all? Is there any reason to believe that handgun sellers
whose clients have killed someone are more careless than other
handgun sellers, rather than just unlucky? If the point is
gun control, it would seem to me better to impose whatever gun
control people want on everyone, rather than doing it so
capriciously.
Lynn Gazis
------------------------------
Date: Saturday, 19 October 1985 23:06:39 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: curiosity
Why are the "Sandinistas aren't so bad" folks suddenly silent? Did they
take my suggestion to stick to less purely political topics (something I
violate myself)? Or are they wiping egg off their face following the recent
events (no more pretending they're democrats) down there?
------------------------------
Date: 19 Oct 85 03:29:16 CDT (Sat)
From: utzoo!henry
Subject: firearms "accidents"
> "--If an unarmed civilian, face-down on the street is shot in the
> head by a policeman, it was an accident (This has been the finding
> in at least 3 cases in the last 3 years in California that I know
> of)."
>
> I don't know about these incidents, but just mayby they were accidents, or had
> you forgotten to consider that?
People with proper training in firearms handling are not supposed to have
such accidents. Assuming they really were accidents, surely this is, at
the very least, criminal negligence by the police involved? Negligent
homicide or manslaughter would be more like it. "Never point a gun at
something you are not willing to kill."
If those shootings really were accidents, they are a pretty sad commentary
on the quality of firearms training for California police.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 85 21:47:52 PDT
From: sun!oscar!wild@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU (Will Doherty)
Subject: Police abuses
Police forces, for as long as they have existed, have abused
their power. As they say, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The following information comes from the Stanford Daily (10/14-
10/18) and my personal experience related to these incidents.
On Friday, October 11, Stanford University police arrested nine
student protestors for sitting in at the Old Union on campus.
The students were continuing a series of civil disobediences
actions that started on May 28 with the arrest of nine.
They are protesting Stanford's investments in corporations
doing business with South Africa.
One of the nine students arrested was senior Robby Perkins.
Perkins was the only black person of the nine arrested. Three
of the protestors were issued citations at the scene of the
protest and released. The other six refused to cooperate
with the police, by choosing to go limp when arrested, and refusing
to give names.
The police charged the protestors with an assortment of crimes:
unlawful assembly, remaining at the scene of a riot, refusal
to disperse from an unlawful assembly, tresspassing, and
resisting arrest. So far, a normal civil disobedience action.
However, the police apparently decided they wanted to dissuade
further protestors, or perhaps they just wanted to have some
fun. The arrested protestors say police twisted their wrists,
carried them by their arms, excessively tightened handcuffs,
and picked them up by their pants and wrists. They claim
the police handled them in "the most painful way possible."
Robby Perkins was taken into a solitary cell and beaten.
Police forced him to strip, kicked him, beat him, and
locked him in shackles. (I can just hear them joking now:
"We'll show you what it's like to be in South Africa.")
Four of the protestors plan lawsuits. Perkins plans an
individual lawsuit with further charges.
Police arrested six more protestors on October 14, including one
professor. Then, on October 16, 31 more protestors got arrested.
I imagine this will continue until thousands are arrested, and
the univerity president finally decides it's costing more to
take care of the arrest problem, then they get in returns from
investments with these corporations.
Columbia University recently divested, some think in response
to the more than one thousand arrests there.
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU
Date: 20 Oct 85 23:18:58 CDT (Sun)
Subject: apples and oranges comparisons
> Would it be out of place for me to point out that 11% of police
> shootings of suspects wind up being adjudged unjustified, vs 2% of
> civilian shootings of suspects? ...
Unfortunately, this comparison isn't a fair one. If one compared the
relative "rightness" of shootings in desperate situations with evident
immediate danger of violence, they might well come out about the same.
Civilians are unlikely to become involved in shootings except in such
last-ditch self-defense situations. The police have to cope with a
much wider range of conditions; a higher error rate is to be expected.
Whether the entire 11%-vs-2% difference can be justified that way is
another story.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 85 22:56:03 EDT
From: "Steven A. Swernofsky" <SASW@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: [INNA: Academic CS Research: Who Pays for It?]
SEMINAR
DATE: October 29, 1985
PLACE: NE43-512A
TIME: 1:45 - Refreshments
2:00 - Lecture
Academic CS research: who pays for it?
Clark Thompson
Computer Science Division
UC Berkeley
In 1976, basic research in academic computer science was supported by
$19 million in federal funds. Two-thirds came from NSF, one-third
from DoD.
The funding picture for 1985 is dramatically different. DoD directs
most of the federally-funded basic research in academic CS. When
non-federal and applied research funds are added in, NSF has but a 25%
share of the $160 million total. DoD presently controls 50% of all
academic CS research.
In my talk, I'll outline the data on academic CS funding. I'll
describe the policies and goals of the major funding agencies.
Finally, I'll discuss the effects of current funding patterns on our
academic freedoms, our base of scientific knowledge, and our
industrial strength.
[How about the pernicious effects due to the fact that all the funds
comes from the government to begin with? I sincerely challenge you
to elucidate them... and if you can't figure them out, I'll help out.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------