JoSH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (JoSH) (11/08/85)
Poli-Sci Digest Fri 08 Nov 85 Volume 5 Number 46
Contents: Police
Responsibility
Nicaragua
CS funding
[ps-- sorry for the long inter-digest period, as soon as I got back
from vacation I got the flu... --JoSH]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 85 11:14 MST
From: RWhitney@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Support your local police.
Well, I may have bitten off more than I can chew. I had not expected the
number of counter-arguments that appeared. I'm afraid I simply don't
have enough time to respond completely to all of it but I'll try as best
I can.
(By the way, as a quick geography lesson for JoSH, Phoenix is in the
SOUTHwest, not the MID-west. And for those who think Phoenix is a small
town, it happens to be the 9th largest city, population-wise, in the U.S.,
and still growing.)
First let me say that I don't believe the police are always right. Their
human just like you are. They make mistakes like everyone else and some
do overstep their authority. Take any group or profession and you're
bound to find "bad-apples" (even if they're ex-navy criminal
investigators!). I'm even willing to admit there may be "bad"
departments out there. Often though what probably happens is that an
officer or officers screw up and it wins an instant reputation for the
whole department. There's an old saying that goes "You can build bridges
all your life, but suck one cock and you won't be known as a
bridge-builder. You'll be a cocksucker."
I think I'll start with Mr. Sybalskys' comments...
From: Sybalsky.pa@Xerox.ARPA
"I can't condone blatant trespassing and terrorism."
Whoa, wait just a minute! I'm afraid the facts presented in this article (IF
indeed they are facts, which I'm not quite so sure of) do not substantiate
a charge of trespassing, let alone "terrorism". Obviously your concepts of
trespassing and terrorism are much different than mine. If you don't mind I'm
going to throw out the "terrorism" charge as ridiculus and concentrate on the
alleged trespass.
From: [same]
"If you'll re-read the article..."
Unfortunately I can't. Threw it in the ole bit bucket. Terribly silly of me.
From: [same]
"...daughter describes the armed men coming up the driveway, telling
her to get out of their way."
Rude perhaps (depending on how and why they told her to get out of the way),
but not trespassing. I'll have to use AZ. law since I'm not familiar with
Californias' trespass statues so pretend it happened just outside of Phoenix
for a bit. Under AZ. statues one of the following conditions must be true
in order to charge for trespass...
1. The yard must have been fenced and posted "no trespassing" or,
2. The owner must have made a reasonable request for those persons to
leave, allowing them a reasonable amount of time to do so.
There are of course other conditions but I didn't think it useful to enter
all possible statues involved in trespassing since they didn't really apply.
Was the yard fenced? How long is the driveway? Is the driveway distinguishable
from a state owned road? (often not in rural areas) How far up the driveway
did they go? How long were they there? Does the ex-navy man own that part
of the driveway? Awful lot of questions here that the article didn't even hint
at. Questions I'd have to ask as a police officer before I could arrest
someone for trespasssing.
From: [same]
"I guess I'm not willing to believe that they had a warrant
allowing them to search that property."
Why not? Seems like a pretty big asumption on your part.
From: [same]
"...WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY DOING THERE?"
I don't know, and neither do you. I'm willing to assume they're looking
for marijuana, you on the other hand have lept to the conclusion that
they were engaging in "trespassing and terrorism". Tisk tisk. If you
(as a civilian) did the same thing they did, i.e. an armed man coming up the
driveway, I couldn't charge YOU with trespassing, at least not without more
facts.
If you really wanted to you could describe every officer who came to your
door as "a heavily armed man who came trampling up my driveway" no matter
why he was there. See what I mean? I'm not saying those officers weren't
doing something wrong, but your claims based on this article are simply
unsupported.
From: [same]
"...but only granting that you had any business being on his
property to start with--and I spell that "observed infraction"
or "warrant"."
There are other instances in which police may enter your property even though
you have not given permission for them to enter. The obvious example is a
police officer who walks up to your door to to talk with you (for any reason).
Another in which an officer may actually brandish a weapon is "hot-pursuit"
of a suspect. If a foot pursuit is going through a residential neighborhood
it's more than likely that the suspect will try and evade the officer by
cutting through a back yard. Yet another instance is the "check-welfare"
type of search. Say I'm outside your home and hear a scream. I'm going to
want to search that home to insure the welfare of the inhabitants. The courts
have generally upheld the officers' right/duty to investigate even though
the officer has no warrant and has not observed a crime. Phoenix has a rather
large elderly population and it is not unusual for us to break into the home
of a senior citizen to search for them if there is any reason to believe
they may have been injured or died.
From: [same]
"...(generalizing shamelessly--I KNOW this isn't true of each
individual policeman!) tend to do what makes their jobs easier:
they take short cuts."
Yes you are generalizing, shamelessly and incorrectly. The fact of the matter
is that if I arrest you for a crime your defense attorney is going to love
every short-cut I make because each one is an almost sure bet for a dismissal
when your case gets to court.
From: [same]
"--A broadening of a policeman's discretion to stop people
and search them, to investigate on flimsier and flimsier
grounds, etc. Stop-and-frisk laws are an example of this.
An officer doesn't need any probable cause to believe
that you've committed a crime, he only needs a reason
to believe that you may be armed (legally or not) and
he may search you. Forcibly if need be."
"Stop and frisk" is an area a large number of people don't like or don't
understand. When I stop and frisk someone my sole aim is to insure my own
safety. As it happens an incident occurred just last week while I was on
patrol. I feel it might be a perfect example for this discussion...
While travelling along a major street in Phoenix I noticed the car in front
of us had out-of-state plates without a validation sticker. Suspecting a
possible registration violation I asked my partner (who was driving) to pull
the car over. As the car pulled over the male passenger jumps out. "Watch out,"
said my partner, "Looks like he's going to run." Thinking the same thing I had
already jumped out of my side and moved up towards the subject. The female
driver (still in the car) was hanging onto the male yelling "Don't go. Stay
here. STAY HERE!" He then tured and shook her off and, from my vantage point
appeared to be reaching back into the car as if to get something from the dash
or glove compartment. I suddenly realized I was in a tactically bad position
(out in the open without nearby cover and too close to the subject). The
subject then turned back towards me without a weapon in his hand.
Me: "Put your hands on the car."
Him: "No!"
Me: "PUT YOUR DAMN HANDS ON THE CAR!"
Him: (Putting his hands on the car) "What the fuck you hasslin' me for man?"
Obviously he felt we were needlessly hassling him. I didn't see it that way.
Would I have used force if needed to search that subject? You bet. I believed
at that point that he was acting extremely suspisious and may well be armed.
Someone watching from across the street might believe I had searched that
person for no reason. I'm sensitive to rights violations too, but I'm even
more sensitive to catching a bullet. With this in mind the Supreme Court
has ruled "stop and frisk" a reasonable search, therefore it is not a
violation of your rights.
I would also point out that "stop and frisk" does not give an officer the
right to start pulling everything out of your pockets. Unless it appears to
be a weapon he has to leave it alone.
Not long ago another Phoenix officer was not so lucky. He saw, approached
and talked to a suspisious subject who, unknown to the officer, had just
commited an armed robbery. After the officer finished talking to him the
subject drew a handgun and fataly shot the officer in the neck.
From: [same]
"--An increasing monopoly on the part of the police on
the means of defending person and property against
crime."
This is not really true. Police departments all over the nation support
block-watch and "Operation Identification" as well as other community
involvement programs. What the police do not support are the
"Guardian Angle" type operations. Why not? Because there is too much
danger that these groups will turn in to vigilantes. The police are
accountable to the legislative bodies who control their funding if
nothing else. Vigilante groups are accountable to NO ONE AT ALL. That's
often why they seem to be anti-citizen involvement.
It's ashame that your state (California) has adopted such assanine laws
in regards to firearms, mace, etc... I sympathize, honest. I strongly
support private ownership of firearms. My personal arsenal ranges from
.22's to fully automatic sub-machineguns. Pity the poor burglar who finds
me at home! As far as mace goes I can't for the life of me understand
why California would require a permit to carry it. I always recomend
mace for protection outside the house. (I perfer a Colt .45 for inside
my own home.) Mace is non-leathal and quite effective if you get
good stuff. I don't know what "watered-down" variety you've heard about,
but Smith & Wesson Mark IV is great.
From [same]
"Pray tell, then, why is it that the DEA and project CAMP
(the anti-marijuana campaign in Mendocino Country) never want
for one-time volunteers to go along. I have seen published
reports of interviewees saying they wanted to try it once.
NOT that they wanted to do their part in eliminating drugs,
but just to go along once. Why, if not for the thrill?"
Curiosity and a sense of adventure is probably what drives most to apply.
I`d like to try it once to see what these kind of operations are like,
and I'd even bet you wouldn't mind tagging along yourself if the opertunity
presented itself. Secondly, I seriously doubt that these "one-timers"
comprise any significant portion of the DEA teams. Too much training is
required to spend it on "one-timers".
From: [me!]
"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
"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?"
Kind of proves my point, no? These figures don't really suprise me though.
The police officer faces a couple of problems. First is that a police
shooting is typically scrutinized on a level that civilian shootings are
not. Also, police officers are, for obvious reasons, involved in far more
situations in which a "shoot, no-shoot" decision must be made. Civilians
also tend to find the situations they're in far more obvious and typically
have more information to work with. Most civilian shootings involve the owner
of a home firing on a burglar. The homeowner is almost certain to know who
is and is not authorized to be in the home. The police officer is often
operating on less than complete information when he has to make the decision
to use deadly force. Let's look at an example...
Several Phoenix police officers responded to a possible burglary in progress
call at a large commercial yard. Finding an open gate they entered and began
a routine search. Unknown to the officers some security guards were in the
compound playing cards in one of the buildings. The guards were apparently
off duty and had removed their uniform shirts. One of the guards heard the
officers outside and believed they were burglars. He picked up his revolver
and charged out of the building, gun at the ready, suprising the officer.
The officer fired one round wounding the guard. I'm sure this falls under
your 11% as a mistaken shooting, but at the time the decision to shoot had
to be made, and given the officers view of the situation it's hard to find
him at fault (at least in my mind).
This isn't to say that police officers don't screw up. Of course they do
and I certainly won't try to deny it. The shootings that Mr. Sybalsky has
pointed out may well have been screw-ups, but on the other hand we really
don't have all the facts. Since a shotgun was involved it's certainly
possible the weapon wasn't actually pointed at the subjects head. He could
have been killed by ricochet from a blast hitting the ground several yards
away.
From: [same]
"I have no comparable figures for murder and aggravated
assault--I'd be very interested in them, if you do."
I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. I usually assume ALL
murders and agg. assaults are "unjustified".
From: [same]
"...and you agree that crime control should be
left completely to the police, apparently)."
No, I believe ENFORCEMENT of laws should be left to the police. I have no
problem at all with people defending themselves. Things like owning a gun
(AND knowing how to use it) as well as installing an alarm system are a
part of this. Most people though are just too lazy. They don't know the
laws, they don't know how to fire a gun, they don't have an alarm system
and they don't think it will happen to them. Citizens also need to get
involved. Often people will see something suspisious and do NOTHING about
it, not even call the police.
From: [same]
"According to studies of criminals, the single most important
deterrant--the reason most given for avoiding a particular
target--is a fear that the occupant is armed. This sounds
like an argument for widespread possession of guns to me."
This may be true if they think the home is occupied. Most burglaries though
happen when noone is home and the burglar has nothing to fear from the
residents. In my experiance an audible alarm (preferably a motion detecting
type) is your best bet to keep away burglars. When they hear it go off they
seldom stick around.
Mr. Sybalskys' problem seems to stem from a legislature gone whacko. I`d
suggest either moving to a reasonable state (like Arizona) or working to
elect legislators with more common sense.
In closing I'd like to say that there is a system for punishing the police
when they screw up. If they injure you in some manner then file a lawsuit!
Police departments learn when you hit them where it hurts, in the budget.
Phoenix doesn't have a "good" department just because they thought it
would be wonderful. We have a "good" department because we don't like
getting sued. And that's the way the world works...
Whew! That's a mouthful. I realize I didn't get a chance to respond to all
the transactions I'd have liked to, just not enough time right now. Sorry.
I'm sure that this will be more than enough to fan the flames already
burning however. I'm eagerly awaiting the next batch of replies.
REW
[I know where Phoenix is, it's the *character* of midwest towns I know
of I was assiging it. I had no idea it was so large, though. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 23 Oct 85 12:55 EDT (Wed)
From: _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS>
To: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: liability
From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO at SRI-NIC.ARPA>
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.
No, Yes, No and Precisely. Wendell Turley, the lawyer who has
brought most of the "defectless handgun" cases, is candid; his goal
is de facto prohibition of pistol sales.
I can guess about his reason for adopting tort law as his vehicle;
anti-gun people just don't have the votes at the moment to achieve
their objective directly.
One of things that interests me most about it is what I believe to be
the growing intrusion into American political life of what the
British call "bloody-mindedness," the tendency to continue a kind of
political guerrilla warfare long after one would have expected
acknowledgment of defeat on an issue.
For the political process to work nonviolently there has to be
consensus that at some point, no matter how important the issue is,
one should conclude that he has lost and go on to the next political
battle. Nixon, whatever his other charms, made a deliberate decision
not to contest Kennedy's fishy Chicago vote totals in 1960 on the
theory that even if he won a recount, he didn't want to be
responsible for dividing the country. The people in the states of
the old Confederacy eventually concluded that "massive resistance"
wasn't worth it and grudgingly went about the process of
desegregation..
There have always been "one-issue" actors in the political arena.
The traditional American way of dealing with zealots has been
cooptation. The fiery sit-down strikers of the 1930's were slowly
transformed into the torpid AFL-CIO. The suffragettes became the
American Association of University Women.
The difficulty is that there now appear to be some issues on which
both sides are true believers. Gun control is one, (and I, for one,
think the anti-gunners are crazier than the pro-gunners) abortion is
another. If something doesn't give, we will stop being American
about it and start killing people for political principles.
Don't get me wrong. We have killed plenty of people; it just
hasn't been our habit to kill them after they have entered the
political dialogue. That seems to me an extremely important rule,
and I get very nervous when I see someone even begin to look as
if they are willing to violate it.
_B
------------------------------
Date: 23 Oct 85 18:26:19 EDT (Wednesday)
Subject: Responsibility
From: power.wbst@Xerox.ARPA
Gazis recently bought up the issue of hosts' responsibility towards
guests who drink too much. She felt that it was correct to access some
legal responsibility on the host if the intoxicated guest has an
accident, but perhaps not as much as recent rulings have accessed.
I disagree strongly with this position. I feel that as a host you have
a moral or ethical duty to try to stop a guest from D and D, but not a
legal one. I arrive at this in much the same way I feel that one has an
ethical or moral responsibility to warn a friend not to trust someone
selling swampland in Florida, but you certainly don't have a legal
obligation.
To try to ward off one argrument against my position: the statement
that D and D is different because it poses an immediately life
threatening situation while the others don't is incorrect. If a friend
is playing on railroad tracks or climbing a dangerous mountain, or
dashing across a busy street, it still seems incorrect to access a legal
burden upon you.
What about the fact that a person that is drunk is in diminished
capacity? Does this change things? I contend not, since the person
himself caused the dimished capacity. The fact that drunkeness is a
self-inflicted incapacity brings up a possible countersuit for the
host/bar-owner: wreckless endangerment. If you can prove that the
drunkard had ever been intoxicated before, it shows that he had prior
knowledge of how it would affect him. If he therefore chooses to start
drinking without warning the host/bartender that he is unable to control
himself isn't he endangering everyone in the area? Perhaps he should be
required to carry a card in his wallet or tattoo a message on his
forehead (Warning: the Surgeon General has determined that this person
is incapable of being responsible for himself).
Any lawyers out there have any comments on the feasability of the above?
-Jim
------------------------------
Date: Wed 23 Oct 85 16:54:08-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Sandinistas
I don't know why the rest of the pro-Sandinista contingent has been
silent, but my reason is that I had said in my one message about everything
I had to say, and I didn't want to just repeat myself or flame about
things I hadn't carefully thought out. But since Hank has asked
about our response to the Sandinistas' suspension of rights, I
will comment. I am indeed feeling less pro-Sandinista than I was
a week ago. I am not convinced that I have been proven wrong. Reagan
said that the Sandinistas were totalitarian when they in fact were
not. I thought it was a revolution which had a chance of swinging
either way. Now they seem to be on their way to becoming what
Reagan said they were all along. Perhaps they would have done this
in any case. I can't think, though, that our support for groups
trying to violently overthrow their government encouraged them
to be more willing to tolerate dissent. Nor do I think we should
support the contras now. Right now the only response I can think
of to the action of the Nicaraguan government is to pray for them,
so that is what I am doing. I think some of the pro-Sandinista
people do feel betrayed at this point. I expect some will defend
this action, for I have read arguments by Americans saying that
the Sandinistas were quite right to move the Miskito Indians and
to censor the news. I want to recognize what is wrong in Nicaragua,
but not to give up trying to see that our government deals justly
with it.
Lynn Gazis
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 85 22:01:27 PDT
From: upstill@degas.Berkeley.EDU (Steve Upstill)
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?
Well, I'm glad the Sandinistas have been able to brighten your day so.
Speaking for myself, I quit the discussion when the traffic dwindled to a
single message which showed no sign of attending to anything said previously,
so why bother. Also yes, I figured you had a point: nothing was being learned.
Rather than wiping egg, I'm rather bummed by the news from down south.
However, I'd just like to try to point out again that the point is not and
has never been that "they're democrats". It is that the US has no business
acting so high and mighty re Nicaragua when we eagerly support far,
far worse regimes whose redeeming feature is an enthusiasm for American
foreign policy.
By the way, did anyone see Ortega on Donahue? I didn't, but I understand he:
-- asked anyone who thinks his country is a communist totalitarianism to come
visit and talk to people.
-- invited President Reagan to come down and make his case on Nicaraguan TV.
Fat, as they say, chance.
Steve Upstill
------------------------------
Date: 5 Nov 85 15:00:22 EST
From: Tim <WEINRICH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
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?]
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.
I seem to be missing the point here. Your figures show that, in 1976,
NSF contributed about $12 million to computer science research. Now, nine
years later, NSF gives us around $40 million. The amount has more than
tripled in less than a decade. So I assume that you're not complaining
about NSF contributing too little. Funding from the DoD, on the other hand,
has grown from ~6 million to ~80 million. Are you complaining that the DoD
gives us too much money? Should they stop?
I would not want to underestimate the ability of a funding source to
control the research it is funding. But one should also avoid
overestimations. The Rutgers VLSI project gets a good chunk of its funding
from the DoD (even though all our work is more-or-less public domain.) Now,
its hard to argue that improvements in VLSI technology constitute strictly
military improvements. Better chips can be used as easily in a cat-scan as
in a tank. (The day someone convinces me this is not true will be the day I
stop working here.) The DoD merely considers it important to the defense of
the United States that we have the best VLSI technology in the world. So
they support us, even though they have little reason to exhibit "control"
of the direction of our research. Of course, I realize this example does
not generalize to all areas of research.
Twinerik
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------