JoSH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (JoSH) (10/10/85)
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 10 Oct 85 Volume 5 Number 39
Contents: Personal Responsibility
Police
Nicaragua
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 85 09:45:36 pdt
From: king@kestrel (Dick King)
Subject: Is personal responsibility dead?
Last week a Maryland court ruled that a manufacturer of a "Saturday
Night Special" (small, cheap handgun) could be held liable for death
of a holdup victom if the holdup was performed with such a weapon.
I came to be wondering how that fit with other trends. "Dramshop
laws" (laws holding tavern owners liable for injuries caused by
drunken patrons) and "deep pocket syndrome" (the art of making a
wealthy entity peripherally related to an injury pay the whole thing)
are also recent trends. There was a case in CA where a bicyclist
turned left across traffic at night, got creamed, and successfully
sued the city for inadequate illumination. There was no claim that
the car's lights weren't on.
My wife, who is studying law, points out a number of legal
distinctions, which only means to me that the overturning of one
decision or law will not necessarily affect the others. For example,
she expects the Maryland court's action to fail, not because of the
second amendment, but because it would put a crimp in interstate
commerce (because the manufacturer could be held liable in Maryland
for guns purchased in other states and used there).
I think that the unifying thread is loss of personal responsibility.
If something happens, the legislator, judge and jury cast their eyes
about and see whom they can rip off to make the injured party whole.
Even though in all of these cases there is a person more-or-less
directly responsible for these injuries, that person is not held
responsible, primarily because it is realized that the responsible
person doesn't have the money.
I think that bankruptcy laws have their place - I don't agree with
Debtors' Prison in general. However, I would support such an
institution (a prison in which the inmates are expected to put in a
day's work and receive a minimal living standard until the injured
party is made whole) in cases where there is a judgement resulting
from a criminal action.
-dick
------------------------------
Date: Saturday, 5 October 1985 17:21:26 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Police attack town
I think the reason the police can get away with commando-style raids in
these Northern CA backwoods areas is that a lot of people (e.g. me) think
that many of the residents are criminals. There are in fact Hells Angels
gangs in these areas armed to the teeth and growing dope and importing
cocaine. There are also a lot of non-violent residents who think that since
they're living out in the boondocks, they are sort of exempt from the usual
laws and can have a dope tree in the backyard and get away with it. The
police obviously had good grounds for suspecting dope growers in the area,
and given previous gun battles, were justified in being heavily armed. That
doesn't justify being excessively gungho, but if I thought some gang member
might be occupying the house up ahead, I'd think about myself first and
civility second.
------------------------------
Date: 5 Oct 85 19:41:28 PDT (Saturday)
From: Hoffman.es@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Re: A New Privileged Class?
John,
I agree with your outrage at the police tactics and attitudes ("police
can do no wrong") implied in the pot raid story. I DISAGREE with your
answer to "How did this attitude arise?" You said, "... it stems from a
long period of increasing reliance on the professional police [as] the
citizen's shield against crime."
I would say it also stems from despising civil libertarians as "bleeding
heart liberals soft on crime" and granting "tough on crime" politicians,
prosecutors, and police chiefs whatever they want.
--Rodney Hoffman
------------------------------
Date: 7 Oct 1985 21:24:36 PDT
Subject: The Men In Blue
From: Roger Lewis <RLEWIS@USC-ISIB.ARPA>
In the last issue Sybalsky@xerox.arpa stated that "Police are never punished
for overstepping their bounds...".
Why that's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. Doesn't that user know
that some police even get SUSPENDED!!!! (Never mind the fact that you or I
would find our butts in jail for the same offenses).
Seriously though, the police do get out of hand. Attend 5 punk rock shows in
L.A. and watch what happens when the inevitable bottle is thrown at the police
by some 16 year old (is it the same kid every time?). They call a few dozen
backups, block the concertgoers' cars with their police cars, barricade the
street off and then order the crowd to disperse. Since they can't get in their
cars and drive off the police then get to don their riot gear, wade into the
crowd and "get some stick time" (oh goodie, goodie).
At the Mendiola's riot (1983) they called in 3 city police departments and 4
substations of the L.A. Sheriffs Department. I observed an officer take a
headshot with his baton at a 16 year old pregnant girl because she wouldn't
run when he shouted "Run!". Flipside Magazine got video and audio footage of
an officer threatening to break their camera. The L.A. Weekly printed that a
UCLA cinema student filmed the riot from a rooftop until one of the helicopters
spotted him. Then the police went up and destroyed his equipment. The Weekly
said he had footage of an officer running down the sidewalk breaking storefront
windows with his baton.
The point is that in every "riot" I've witnessed on the punk scene the police
were the main antagonists. And no I'm not a cop hating punk. I worked 4 1/2
years as a Security guard and had constant friendly contact with them. I'm
the founder of our neighborhood watch program and often have contact with them
in that context as well. I was the leader of the neighborhood watch until our
members grew irate at the police department's response, at which time I stepped
down to make room for a leader that was more antagonistic towards the cops.
So, I'd like to think I can look at the problem objectively. And objectively,
I see numerous cases of unneccessary force used against children at concerts.
I urge anyone in L.A. to grab a camera and hang out on the street outside a
large arena punk concert. For a really interesting time dye your hair blue
and "flip off" a cop. (Last I heard the Supreme court guarded "shooting the
bird" as free speech).
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 85 11:25 MST
From: RWhitney@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: A New Privileged Class?
Well, it's been a long time since I've been annoyed enough to get into a good
Poli-Sci flame-throwing contest. Oh boy! I happen to be a police officer with
the city of Phoenix so I think I'll have to take issue with your statements.
(From: Oakland, CA Tribune)
"Marijuana Task Force Sparks Fear, Anger in Canyon Raid
Canyon, CA -- Marijuana raiders in camouflaged SWAT suits, armed
with automatic rifles, shotguns, and chain saws and assisted by two
police helicopters swooped through this secluded hillside hamlet
yesterday in a Rambo-style operation that scared, then enraged its
citizenry."
Let's start with this, shall we? First off terms like "raiders" and "Rambo-
style" (which are repeated later in the article) tend to indicate a
pre-existing bias on the part of the reporter. He implies that the entire
town was living in mortal terror durring this operation. I seriously doubt
this to be the case.
The police don't use drug enforcement as an excuse to dress up in cammies
and terrorize local communities "Rambo-style". The fact of the matter is that
drug enforcement is a VERY dangerous bussiness. Drug producers are well armed
(often better than police) and quite willing to kill anyone who tries to shut
them down. We get a large number of reports of the impressive weapons stashes,
booby-traps and fatal or near fatal incidents involving criminals of this
nature. The guns, uniforms and helicopters are syptoms of a desire to do their
job and get home in one piece.
Many police/community problems stem from a lack of understanding of why the
police do what they do. If you knew what I know you might not be so quick to
condemn the boys-in-blue/cammouflage.
From: sybalsky.pa@Xerox.ARPA
"[The police are]... allowed to use force with impunity, to invade
peoples' property without cause, and to harrass any citizen who
dares take steps against them."
I have trouble believing you really accept this as the way things are. I can't
speak for all departments obviously. In Phoenix though, if I discharge my
weapon for ANY reason (outside of range practice) I have to face a shooting
review board. If I seriously injure someone I have to face a "use of force"
review board. If I'd been out of line the discipline runs from supervisory
counseling (i.e. being chewed-out by my sargeant) to criminal prosecution.
On top of that, if I've violated someones' civil rights the FBI will
investigate and may initiate prosecution on federal charges (something
"civilians" don't have to worry about, even if they're guilty of murder). As
a matter of fact I'm more likely to be penalized for shooting someone as a
police officer than as an average citizen, justified or not.
From: sybalsky.pa@Xerox.ARPA
" --Tramping up your driveway, ordering you out of the way at gunpoint?
--Searching your property--again at gunpoint--without a warrant, and
without identifying themselves?
--Siezing your camera, because you were taking photos of them as they
did their dirty work?"
You're apparently talking about a different incident than the one in the
article. Either that or you've read an awful lot into what was said there.
For someone who wasn't there you're making some pretty serious charges without
supporting evidence. There's two sides to every story and you have only one,
and a biased one at that.
From: sybalsky.pa@Xerox.ARPA
"This is not a generalized polemic against police officers..."
You say this, but the rest of your entry seems to indicate otherwise.
From: [same]
"--If it's a police officer's word against mine, he wins"
This is not an automatic as you seem to think. Generally though I'll admit
you're basically correct. The reason for this though is that the officer
generally has nothing to gain if you're found innocent or guilty. This is
not true of the defendant however, therefore the courts realize you are far
more likely to "color" your testimony. Just consider the immposibility of
enforcing traffic laws if this were not the case.
From: [same]
"--It's OK for police to run around brandishing weapons (a felony in
California for you and me, by the way)."
This is the fault of your state legislature, not the police. The police need
weapons to do their job with some hope of reaching retirement. Fortunately
Arizona has not aquired Californias' gun paranoia (That's as a private citizen,
not a police officer). In fact, I as a civilian am better armed than our SWAT
teams.
From: [same]
"--We should leave crime control to the police--after all, they're
the ones who know best."
I agree with this. How well do you know the laws of your state?
From: [same]
"--I don't need to be armed, the police will defend me."
You and the state of California made this decission. Don't blame the police.
From: [same]
"--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?
From: [same]
"--If you're carrying a gun, the police may stop you at gunpoint and
inspect the gun to make sure you're carrying it legally. Without
cause. This is the law in California."
"Without cause"? If they think you might be carrying it illegally they have
all the cause they need.
From:[same]
"--Police are never punished for overstepping their bounds"
Not true, as I've pointed out already.
From: [same]
"Want to bet on how many homeowners in Canyon collect damages over
this incident?"
Damages? For what? I'm sure if these people really believe they've been wronged
there will be lawsuits.
In short, the police ARE usually punished for "doing wrong". The public media
however finds it sells more newspapers by reporting that "the police have once
again trampled rights and repressed freedoms with impunity".
Basically I believe that if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to
fear from the police. That's a bit of an over-simplification, but it works
for me. I'd guess most of your complaints and fears arise out of simple
ignorance of why the police act the way they do. Maybe you should look into
joining your local police reserve. Not only would it be helping to make your
community a better place, but would serve as an excellent educational
experience.
Enjoy...
REW
[In middle America I believe you're more or less right. The cops
in rural Hunterdon Co. where I live are always courteous and
professional. The city cops around Rutgers aren't nearly so
nice, especially if they think you're a student. The Mississippi
cops in the 60's harassed my father because he was a civil rights
advocate, holding him once for five hours without charge (and
leaving me, 11, and my sister, 9, on the street 18 miles from home).
I suspect John's story is a case of "solid community types get the
treatment usually reserved for inner-city lowlifes." --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 85 01:56:47 PDT
From: tedrick@ucbernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Subject: Nicaragua
I am trying to nose into the next Poli-Sci Digest.
Hope this is the right way to do it.
Ok, here goes.
*IF* I was a Marxist in charge of Nicaragua, I would be
straining every nerve to militarize the whole country to
the maximum extent possible, so as to make a military
overthrow by the USA or its partners as difficult and
costly as possible.
I would do the same were I Fidel Castro in Cuba ...
My theory is that Marxist (so-called) states can survive
even if unable to compete economically with so-called
Capitalistic countries, simply by being so highly militarized
that it would be too costly to invade them. (even if their
equipment is outdated, etc.)
Ok, I will bug you more later ...
(the above does not imply anything about whether I support
or oppose any particular country or political system ..
that will probably come out later ...)
Best Regards,
-Tom
tedrick@berkeley
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 85 00:40:05 edt
From: ihnp4!inmet!janw@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU (Jan Wasilewsky)
> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 85 10:33:22 PDT
> From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley.EDU (Steve Upstill)
>
> [ So, what are...[Nicaragua's large]...forces for, anyway?
> ...JoSH ]
>
> An excellent question, one which has much troubled me. You, JoSH,
> seem to feel that since there is no plausible explanation for their
> numbers, they must be for attacking their neighbors. Logically, this is
> an unsound implication.
Add to it their early rethoric about revolution without borders,
and you get both tools and motive: they were out to carve out
a Central American empire for themselves and their cause.
Not opportunity, though:
> You also feel that they would be useless in
> defending against a determined attack by the United States; why then are
> you so enthusiastic about their utility in attacking nations which the
> US would surely leap to defend?
When the revolution won, it was quite unclear what USA would do in
such a crisis. Salvadoran situation seemed, to many, hopeless.
Apparently, Ortega & his comrades waited for a moment that never
came.
> Sadly, I have to come to the conclusion that the militaristic nature
> of the Nicaraguan state is the result of a paranoid mentality on the
> part of the leadership. But as has been pointed out to me before, just
> because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. And
> the US is surely out to get Nicaragua.
You mean out to get the regime in Managua.
Yes, but it was not at first: it *helped* the bastards.
And it was then that they created that bloated army.
Paranoia, all right, but it can be a powerful tool of
conquest - as many revolutionary wars in history will attest.
> The simple fact is that the most powerful nation in the world is fuming
> with hostility at a tiny, bankrupt but proud (read, uncooperative) neighbor.
> Not being saints, the leadership has responded to this threat the way all
> nations have responded to similar situations: with desperate militarism
> and nationalism.
Again: the "response" came before the threat. And many people
feel that here is a "tiny, proud" tentacle of the Soviet squid.
*That* beast is large; no shame in combatting it where you can.
In any case, Contras are as Nicaraguan as are the Sandinistas; in
helping them, we are *helping* a tiny neighbor. Was any outside
help to Sandinistas against Somoza a cowardly attack on a small
nation? If not, then sauce for the goose should be sauce for the
gander.
Jan Wasilewsky
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------