rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (11/28/84)
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 <pause> 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
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/30/84)
> 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
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (12/01/84)
Tim Sevener recounts a story of a policeman who shot and killed what he thought was a fleeing felon and turned out to be an unarmed 14-year-old boy. I seem to recall that this very issue is up before the US Supreme Court this session. At issue is the "fleeing felon" law in Tennesee, which says that police may use any means necessary to effect the arrest of a suspected felon, including shooting one who is running away. Lest you think these laws are universal: I believe that in New York City, a place where it is harder to be a cop than most of Tennesee, there are much stricter constraints on when police may use their weapons. This information is a number of years old, but I don't think things have changed much. The typical NY cop carries a revolver and a nightstick. The stick is the weapon of choice in almost all circumstances. The only time a NY cop may fire a gun at someone else is if that person has a deadly weapon and is about to use it. In other words, if a criminal has a gun, the cop can't shoot him unless the criminal first points his gun at the cop. Every time a NY cop fires a gun, the incident goes before a panel called the Firearms Discharge Review Board.
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (12/02/84)
> 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. I do not believe the police are authorized to use deadly force to stop a suspect from running away. Sounds like these policemen weren't properly trained. -- I'm not a programmer, I'm a hardware type. Phil Ngai (408) 749-5790 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (12/05/84)
<stop or I'll shoot this bug.> | > 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 schoolyard-- | > policemen thought he might be robbing something and ordered him to | > freeze. The boy panicked and ran-- the policeman shot and killed him. | | I do not believe the police are authorized to use deadly force to stop | a suspect from running away. Sounds like these policemen weren't | properly trained. | Phil Ngai Unfortunately the police ARE authorized to shoot you if you run away from them. The practice is defended under the heading of shooting at a fleeing (suspected) felon. If you run away then you are clearly guilty. :-( All they have to do is warn you ONCE. To put this in proper perspective, most police don't ever draw their weapons except at the firing range. I suspect there is some kind of a neighborhood/district pattern to that raw statistic, where police in certain beats use their guns a lot and the rest hardly ever have to. This information comes from a series of articles in the Oregonian newspaper about two years ago. It was an unpleasant surprise to learn that the fleeing-felon rules had been so broadly interpreted at a federal court level. They also claimed that the policy about police shooting fleeing suspects is a very local thing, and what is permitted in one area might get the officer fired in the next. Hutch