[Thread moved from LPSF-activists] Re: Police Petition/Officer Training

Starchild:

I think it may be counterproductive for criminals to be able to count
on law enforcement to be always rational.

-Derek

I'd like to see the SFPD adopt a policy of no first use of deadly force. In other words, if you are an officer, you do not fire your gun on a civilian unless the civilian fires first. You do not use your nightclub on a civilian unless the civilian attacks first (not just "lunges" or "makes a move," but actually connects or makes a complete swing within striking distance of an officer. Etcetera. I think these killings happen in part because the rules of engagement allow officers to put their own safety ahead of the safety of civilians.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

Derek,

  Speaking as one of the "criminals" (or at least as someone who the system has treated as such) it would be nice to have some assurance of rationality or due process.

    <<< starchild >>>

(I was playing devil's advocate somewhat with my last statement.)

Do you agree that having cops' actions be less than 100% predictable
helps prevent crimes? I tend to think so, but of course, I recognize
it's a slippery slope. It's along these lines why USGov should never
renounce the use of nukes.

Dear Starchild;

It actually comes down to the situation the officer is facing and the alteratives. Right now because of past shootings the SFPD has the bean bag guns and I think they have tasers??? Or it's the San Jose PD???

In either event an alternative use of force is available - if the situation warrants the wait - unfortunately not all situations allow the time needed when events go haywire very rapidly and officers are faced with hair trigger situations and guns pointed at them. Although several incidents have involved vehicles where the police shot the drivers and innocent passengers.

Yet if regular training was given using simulation videos which are available where you are in fact in a large room with a video showing various situations you are needed to respond to and if this was done regularly for every officer then maybe all the shootings which take place won't happen as often.

The policy of don't shoot unless shot at first is nice to but there are so many scenarios involving - what ifs - that rules of engagement are a joke.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Also, I don't consider you a criminal.

Dear Derek;

Actually I think the uS policy would be best served by dis-arming
and dismantling all nukes. And of course getting all the goverments
having nukes to do the same including Israel.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:

(I was playing devil's advocate somewhat with my last statement.)

Do you agree that having cops' actions be less than 100%

predictable

helps prevent crimes? I tend to think so, but of course, I

recognize

it's a slippery slope. It's along these lines why USGov should

never

renounce the use of nukes.

> Derek,
>
> Speaking as one of the "criminals" (or at least as

someone who the

> system has treated as such) it would be nice to have some

assurance of

> rationality or due process.
>
> <<< starchild >>>
>
>
>
> > Starchild:
> >
> > I think it may be counterproductive for criminals to be able

to count

> > on law enforcement to be always rational.
> >
> > -Derek
> >
> > > I'd like to see the SFPD adopt a policy of no first use of

deadly

> > > force. In other words, if you are an officer, you do not

fire your

> > gun
> > > on a civilian unless the civilian fires first. You do not

use your

> > > nightclub on a civilian unless the civilian attacks first

(not just

> > > "lunges" or "makes a move," but actually connects or makes a

complete

> > > swing within striking distance of an officer. Etcetera. I

think these

> > > killings happen in part because the rules of engagement allow
> > officers
> > > to put their own safety ahead of the safety of civilians.
> > >
> > > Yours in liberty,
> > > <<< starchild >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Dear Marcy and Everyone Else;
> > > >
> > > > If the latest news reports are correct this is what

supposedly

> > > > happened.
> > > >
> > > > The suspect staying at a friends apartment went up into a

crawl

> > space
> > > > which is about 3' high the officers supposedly did have a
> > negotiator
> > > > try to talk the suspect come on down
> > > >
> > > > they then went up into thecrawl space to literally try to

leverage

> > > > the suspect out. The crawl space did not have any lights

and the

> > > > officers were using flashlights
> > > >
> > > > so you have a extremely tense situation where the suspect
> > supposedly
> > > > said he wasn't going back into jail - refusing to come

down and the

> > > > two officers not waiting to see what happens next by just

simply

> > > > waiting.
> > > >
> > > > Then the suspect pointed a glasses case but in the dimness

of the

> > > > flashlight illuminated crawlspace one officer saw the

glasses case

> > as
> > > > a gun and shot actually grazing the other officer who

thought she

> > had
> > > > been fired on and her shot took out the suspect.
> > > >
> > > > The suspects friend was there and did try to call down the

suspect

> > and
> > > > that didn't work Why the officers did not wait out the

suspect and

> > why
> > > > they decided they had to go up into the crawl space is

second

> > guessing
> > > > and Monday morning quarterbacking.
> > > >
> > > > I would hopeafter a genuine thorough investigation ( yeah

right)

> > > > that the training manual is amended to reflect this type

of a

> > > > situation.
> > > >
> > > > For those of you not familiar with crawl spaces they are

narrow

> > nasty
> > > > dark filled with cross support beams and bars and aredark

with no

> > > > internal illumination. I tell you this from having had to

work in

> > such
> > > > crawl spaces back in my asst manager of an 8 story

apartment

> > building
> > > > while working my way through college and having to patch

leaking

> > pipes
> > > > etc etc etclocated within these crawl spaces. Not a fun

part of the

> > > > job.
> > > >
> > > > You do not go into such spaces to get someone out who

doesn't want

> > to
> > > > come out you simply wait them out.
> > > >
> > > > Ron Getty
> > > > SF Libertarian
> > > >
> > > > From: Amarcy D. Berry <amarcyb@...>
> > > > To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Friday, June 9, 2006 8:49:37 PM
> > > > Subject: [lpsf-activists] Police Petition/Officer Training
> > > >
> > > > As carried in the news, a couple of police officers shot

and

> > killed on
> > > > Wednesday a young man in Parkmerced, right accross the

street from

> > > > where I live. The sound of gun shots is a heart wrenching

thing; I

> > > > feel for the neighborhoods that hear them often. It

appears that

> > the
> > > > officers mistook an eye glasses case for a gun and shot. I

am

> > > > suggesting that we incorporate in our presentations better

police

> > > > training. Perhaps not include the idea in the Petition

itself, but

> > > > suggest in our presentations that more training in conflict
> > resolution
> > > > could be achieved if the officers were not deployed to

useless

It's sort of a moot point since as long as police officers are human their actions will always be less than 100% predictable. But in general I opt for the rule of law, which means striving for 100% predictability even knowing it will never be achieved. Because when the rules are predictable it means that justice is being evenly applied. I don't think when and where cops walk their beats should be predictable, but I think their use of force should be as predictable as the law can make it. And some things are so horrific that I think they should be legally treated as entirely off the table. Serious forms of torture and use of nuclear weapons against population centers are things I'd put into that category. I think you're right that this means some deterrence value is sacrificed, but I think making that tradeoff is one sign of being civilized.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

Dear Derek;

If you have nukes you will always be tempted to use them because
they are there to be used. Just like Truman did on Japan. There was
absolutely no purpose involved in incinerating a couple hundred
thousand Japanese civilians. Even top generals and admirals said so.
They were used solely to impress Russia with the mighty USA.

Disarming all nukes internationally is the only way to go. Look at
all the times Russia and US went eye ball to eye ball threatening to
turn the world into one huge fireball.

Just like having a military - if you have one you will always be
tempted to use them. Which is why there are some 300,000 US troops
around the world at 175 US military bases. And this does not include
Iraq and Afghanistan.

Or that moron Bush who wants to use nukes on Iran's supposed nuclear
facilities and will end up incinerating or irradiating a couple
million innocent civilians.

Nukes are nothing but weapons of mass murder and destruction - get
rid of them all - AND - the morons who would use them.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:

Ron:

Nuclear technology exists. It isn't going away. One can never be

sure who

else has a nuclear bomb, whether state, state supported, or rogue
individuals. That said, it's prudent for the US to have them so

we could

retaliate.

>
> Dear Derek;
>
> Actually I think the uS policy would be best served by dis-arming
> and dismantling all nukes. And of course getting all the

goverments

> having nukes to do the same including Israel.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%

40yahoogroups.com>,

> "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@>
>
> wrote:
> >
> > (I was playing devil's advocate somewhat with my last

statement.)

> >
> > Do you agree that having cops' actions be less than 100%
> predictable
> > helps prevent crimes? I tend to think so, but of course, I
> recognize
> > it's a slippery slope. It's along these lines why USGov should
> never
> > renounce the use of nukes.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Derek,
> > >
> > > Speaking as one of the "criminals" (or at least as
> someone who the
> > > system has treated as such) it would be nice to have some
> assurance of
> > > rationality or due process.
> > >
> > > <<< starchild >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Starchild:
> > > >
> > > > I think it may be counterproductive for criminals to be

able

> to count
> > > > on law enforcement to be always rational.
> > > >
> > > > -Derek
> > > >
> > > > > I'd like to see the SFPD adopt a policy of no first use

of

> deadly
> > > > > force. In other words, if you are an officer, you do not
> fire your
> > > > gun
> > > > > on a civilian unless the civilian fires first. You do not
> use your
> > > > > nightclub on a civilian unless the civilian attacks first
> (not just
> > > > > "lunges" or "makes a move," but actually connects or

makes a

> complete
> > > > > swing within striking distance of an officer. Etcetera. I
> think these
> > > > > killings happen in part because the rules of engagement

allow

> > > > officers
> > > > > to put their own safety ahead of the safety of civilians.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yours in liberty,
> > > > > <<< starchild >>>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Marcy and Everyone Else;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the latest news reports are correct this is what
> supposedly
> > > > > > happened.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The suspect staying at a friends apartment went up

into a

> crawl
> > > > space
> > > > > > which is about 3' high the officers supposedly did

have a

> > > > negotiator
> > > > > > try to talk the suspect come on down
> > > > > >
> > > > > > they then went up into thecrawl space to literally try

to

> leverage
> > > > > > the suspect out. The crawl space did not have any

lights

> and the
> > > > > > officers were using flashlights
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so you have a extremely tense situation where the

suspect

> > > > supposedly
> > > > > > said he wasn't going back into jail - refusing to come
> down and the
> > > > > > two officers not waiting to see what happens next by

just

> simply
> > > > > > waiting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then the suspect pointed a glasses case but in the

dimness

> of the
> > > > > > flashlight illuminated crawlspace one officer saw the
> glasses case
> > > > as
> > > > > > a gun and shot actually grazing the other officer who
> thought she
> > > > had
> > > > > > been fired on and her shot took out the suspect.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The suspects friend was there and did try to call down

the

> suspect
> > > > and
> > > > > > that didn't work Why the officers did not wait out the
> suspect and
> > > > why
> > > > > > they decided they had to go up into the crawl space is
> second
> > > > guessing
> > > > > > and Monday morning quarterbacking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would hopeafter a genuine thorough investigation (

yeah

> right)
> > > > > > that the training manual is amended to reflect this

type

> of a
> > > > > > situation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For those of you not familiar with crawl spaces they

are

> narrow
> > > > nasty
> > > > > > dark filled with cross support beams and bars and

aredark

> with no
> > > > > > internal illumination. I tell you this from having had

to

> work in
> > > > such
> > > > > > crawl spaces back in my asst manager of an 8 story
> apartment
> > > > building
> > > > > > while working my way through college and having to

patch

> leaking
> > > > pipes
> > > > > > etc etc etclocated within these crawl spaces. Not a fun
> part of the
> > > > > > job.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You do not go into such spaces to get someone out who
> doesn't want
> > > > to
> > > > > > come out you simply wait them out.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron Getty
> > > > > > SF Libertarian
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Amarcy D. Berry <amarcyb@>
> > > > > > To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com<lpsf-activists%

40yahoogroups.com>

> > > > > > Sent: Friday, June 9, 2006 8:49:37 PM
> > > > > > Subject: [lpsf-activists] Police Petition/Officer

Training

> > > > > >
> > > > > > As carried in the news, a couple of police officers

shot

> and
> > > > killed on
> > > > > > Wednesday a young man in Parkmerced, right accross the
> street from
> > > > > > where I live. The sound of gun shots is a heart

wrenching

> thing; I
> > > > > > feel for the neighborhoods that hear them often. It
> appears that
> > > > the
> > > > > > officers mistook an eye glasses case for a gun and

shot. I

> am
> > > > > > suggesting that we incorporate in our presentations

better

> police
> > > > > > training. Perhaps not include the idea in the Petition
> itself, but
> > > > > > suggest in our presentations that more training in

conflict

Derek,

  You mean so the U.S. government could retaliate. If people wouldn't associate themselves with national governments so much, there would be less incentive to attack civilians as a way of attacking or influencing those governments.

  We agree on this much however -- the regime in Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.

  To those who disagree with that, I urge you to consider whether you think it's OK to ban someone with a record of initiating violence from owning a firearm. Or whether it's a good idea to prevent someone who expresses an interest in committing violence against children from working in an elementary school. If so, then I think by similar logic, regimes like the one in Tehran ought to be considered as having sacrificed the privilege (I won't call it a right) of possessing nukes.

  But for the exact same reason that regime should not have nuclear weapons, neither should nuclear weapons be used against them -- because it would constitute an unacceptable danger to large numbers of civilians.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

May I point out that if citizens are not their government, then a government
is not a person? So, we cannot conclude that any regime has a "record" and
should be "banned" from a sovereign right. But dictators use the trick of
describing a foreign government as a hated individual or despicable group,
to keep their own citizens frightened and willing to kill. George Bush
started the Iraq war by leveling accusations against "Saddam", but went on
to kill 100,000+ innocent Iraqis, (and kills more every day). Verbal
attacks on Kim Jong Il of North Korea descended to his short stature and
personal appearance, before nuclear fuel enrichment by Iran become the main
thrust of the administration against the imaginary "axis of evil".

Dictatorial governments, in fact, need to have enemies. Threats and
sanctions make them stronger at home, not weaker. The US ruled Iran for
decades through the puppet Shah-en-Shah, (a commoner declared "King of
Kings"), by involving Iran in the cold war against the USSR. The theocracy
took over by declaring the US as the enemy. It actually benefits from the
opposition of the US government to maintain its political control.

No government should enjoy a "privilege" of nuclear weapons. (As a
Libertarian I wonder who should administer such privileges? The UN, George
W. Bush, or God?) But the US keeps enough nukes to destroy every capital
several times over. The place to start tearing down the nuclear evil, is not
in Teheran, but in Washington.

Harland Harrison
Libertarian for Congress
12th District (San Mateo-San Francisco, CA)
http://Harrison2006.LPSM.org

Dear Starchild;

You said in part; "But for the exact same reason that regime should not have nuclear nuclear weapons, neither should nuclear weapons be used against them -- because it would constitute an unacceptable danger to large numbers of civilians."

In the matter of having and not having nuclear weapons would you extend this to Israel who DOES have some 200 tactical and strategic nuclear weapons and also chemical and biological weapons capabilities? Should the US invade Israel because of these WMD's?

Israel refuses to sign the NPT and refuses IAEE membership which would mean opening their nuclear facilities to the same type of inspections Iran undergoes.

Would you endorse requiring Israel to join and sign NPT and The IAEE and opening their nuclear facilities to inspection? Then dismantling their weapons of WMD?

Secondly on the matter of the standard government reaction of using nukes against civilians it ignores the fact that rightfully the nukes should be used against the government leaders who caused the problems in the first place. Massacring several hundred thousand civilians because of leadership hubris is a definite no no. It makes too many people glow in the dark.

Wipe out the government leaders not the people. Let the morons who created the problems pay the price not the civilians. Decapitate the heads of state not the heads of the people. Bring back the guillotine to use against King George the II and his Royal Princes of the Court - Rumsfield Rice Cheney etc etc etc.... Pull up bricks from the streets to toss - man the barricades - storm the Bastille!!!

Viva Las Revoluciones!!! "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternity"

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

Dear Derek;

Everything is real but the last 4 or so sentences. Okay?

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

BTW why is yahoo blocking your e-mails so relentlessly??

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:

Ron:

I have trouble discerning when you are joking.

-Derek

>
> Dear Starchild;
>
> You said in part; "But for the exact same reason that regime

should not

> have nuclear nuclear weapons, neither should nuclear weapons be

used against

> them -- because it would constitute an unacceptable danger to

large numbers

> of civilians."
>
> In the matter of having and not having nuclear weapons would you

extend

> this to Israel who *DOES* have some 200 tactical and strategic

nuclear

> weapons and also chemical and biological weapons capabilities?

Should the US

> invade Israel because of these WMD's?
>
> Israel refuses to sign the NPT and refuses IAEE membership which

would

> mean opening their nuclear facilities to the same type of

inspections Iran

> undergoes.
>
> Would you endorse requiring Israel to join and sign NPT and The

IAEE and

> opening their nuclear facilities to inspection? Then dismantling

their

> weapons of WMD?
>
> Secondly on the matter of the standard government reaction of

using nukes

> against civilians it ignores the fact that rightfully the nukes

should be

> used against the government leaders who caused the problems in

the first

> place. Massacring several hundred thousand civilians because of

leadership

> hubris is a definite no no. It makes too many people glow in the

dark.

>
> Wipe out the government leaders not the people. Let the morons

who created

> the problems pay the price not the civilians. Decapitate the

heads of state

> not the heads of the people. Bring back the guillotine to use

against King

> George the II and his Royal Princes of the Court - Rumsfield

Rice Cheney etc

> etc etc.... Pull up bricks from the streets to toss - man the

barricades -

> storm the Bastille!!!
>
> Viva Las Revoluciones!!! "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternity"
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
>
> From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:37:47 PM
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Nuclear weapons/Iran (was: Police

Petition/Officer

> Training)
>
> Derek,
>
> You mean so the U.S. government could retaliate. If people

wouldn't

> associate themselves with national governments so much, there

would be

> less incentive to attack civilians as a way of attacking or

influencing

> those governments.
>
> We agree on this much however -- the regime in Iran should

not be

> allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.
>
> To those who disagree with that, I urge you to consider

whether you

> think it's OK to ban someone with a record of initiating

violence from

> owning a firearm. Or whether it's a good idea to prevent someone

who

> expresses an interest in committing violence against children

from

> working in an elementary school. If so, then I think by similar

logic,

> regimes like the one in Tehran ought to be considered as having
> sacrificed the privilege (I won't call it a right) of possessing

nukes.

>
> But for the exact same reason that regime should not have

nuclear

> weapons, neither should nuclear weapons be used against them --

because

> it would constitute an unacceptable danger to large numbers of
> civilians.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
>
>
> > Ron:
> >
> > Nuclear technology exists. It isn't going away. One can

never be

> > sure who else has a nuclear bomb, whether state, state

supported, or

> > rogue individuals. That said, it's prudent for the US to have

them so

> > we could retaliate.
> >
> >
> > Dear Derek;
> >
> > Actually I think the uS policy would be best served by dis-

arming

> > and dismantling all nukes. And of course getting all the

goverments

> > having nukes to do the same including Israel.
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@>
> >
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > (I was playing devil's advocate somewhat with my last

statement.)

> > >
> > > Do you agree that having cops' actions be less than 100%
> > predictable
> > > helps prevent crimes? I tend to think so, but of course, I
> > recognize
> > > it's a slippery slope. It's along these lines why USGov

should

> > never
> > > renounce the use of nukes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Derek,
> > > >
> > > > Speaking as one of the "criminals" (or at least as
> > someone who the
> > > > system has treated as such) it would be nice to have some
> > assurance of
> > > > rationality or due process.
> > > >
> > > > <<< starchild >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Starchild:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it may be counterproductive for criminals to be

able

> > to count
> > > > > on law enforcement to be always rational.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Derek
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to see the SFPD adopt a policy of no first

use of

> > deadly
> > > > > > force. In other words, if you are an officer, you do

not

> > fire your
> > > > > gun
> > > > > > on a civilian unless the civilian fires first. You do

not

> > use your
> > > > > > nightclub on a civilian unless the civilian attacks

first

> > (not just
> > > > > > "lunges" or "makes a move," but actually connects or

makes a

> > complete
> > > > > > swing within striking distance of an officer.

Etcetera. I

> > think these
> > > > > > killings happen in part because the rules of

engagement allow

> > > > > officers
> > > > > > to put their own safety ahead of the safety of

civilians.

> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yours in liberty,
> > > > > > <<< starchild >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear Marcy and Everyone Else;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If the latest news reports are correct this is what
> > supposedly
> > > > > > > happened.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The suspect staying at a friends apartment went up

into a

> > crawl
> > > > > space
> > > > > > > which is about 3' high the officers supposedly did

have a

> > > > > negotiator
> > > > > > > try to talk the suspect come on down
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > they then went up into thecrawl space to literally

try to

> > leverage
> > > > > > > the suspect out. The crawl space did not have any

lights

> > and the
> > > > > > > officers were using flashlights
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > so you have a extremely tense situation where the

suspect

> > > > > supposedly
> > > > > > > said he wasn't going back into jail - refusing to

come

> > down and the
> > > > > > > two officers not waiting to see what happens next by

just

> > simply
> > > > > > > waiting.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then the suspect pointed a glasses case but in the

dimness

> > of the
> > > > > > > flashlight illuminated crawlspace one officer saw the
> > glasses case
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > a gun and shot actually grazing the other officer who
> > thought she
> > > > > had
> > > > > > > been fired on and her shot took out the suspect.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The suspects friend was there and did try to call

down the

> > suspect
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > that didn't work Why the officers did not wait out

the

> > suspect and
> > > > > why
> > > > > > > they decided they had to go up into the crawl space

is

> > second
> > > > > guessing
> > > > > > > and Monday morning quarterbacking.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would hopeafter a genuine thorough investigation (

yeah

> > right)
> > > > > > > that the training manual is amended to reflect this

type

> > of a
> > > > > > > situation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For those of you not familiar with crawl spaces they

are

> > narrow
> > > > > nasty
> > > > > > > dark filled with cross support beams and bars and

aredark

> > with no
> > > > > > > internal illumination. I tell you this from having

had to

> > work in
> > > > > such
> > > > > > > crawl spaces back in my asst manager of an 8 story
> > apartment
> > > > > building
> > > > > > > while working my way through college and having to

patch

> > leaking
> > > > > pipes
> > > > > > > etc etc etclocated within these crawl spaces. Not a

fun

> > part of the
> > > > > > > job.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You do not go into such spaces to get someone out who
> > doesn't want
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > come out you simply wait them out.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ron Getty
> > > > > > > SF Libertarian
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Amarcy D. Berry <amarcyb@>
> > > > > > > To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, June 9, 2006 8:49:37 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: [lpsf-activists] Police Petition/Officer

Training

> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As carried in the news, a couple of police officers

shot

> > and
> > > > > killed on
> > > > > > > Wednesday a young man in Parkmerced, right accross

the

> > street from
> > > > > > > where I live. The sound of gun shots is a heart

wrenching

> > thing; I
> > > > > > > feel for the neighborhoods that hear them often. It
> > appears that
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > officers mistook an eye glasses case for a gun and

shot. I

> > am
> > > > > > > suggesting that we incorporate in our presentations

better

> > police
> > > > > > > training. Perhaps not include the idea in the

Petition

> > itself, but
> > > > > > > suggest in our presentations that more training in

conflict

> > > > > resolution
> > > > > > > could be achieved if the officers were not deployed

to

> > useless
> > > > > tasks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marcy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Derek,
>
>
> You mean so the U.S. government could retaliate. If people

wouldn't

> associate themselves with national governments so much, there

would be

> less incentive to attack civilians as a way of attacking or
> influencing those governments.
>
>
> We agree on this much however -- the regime in Iran should

not be

> allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.
>
>
> To those who disagree with that, I urge you to consider

whether you

> think it's OK to ban someone with a record of initiating

violence from

> owning a firearm. Or whether it's a good idea to prevent someone

who

> expresses an interest in committing violence against children

from

> working in an elementary school. If so, then I think by similar

logic,

> regimes like the one in Tehran ought to be considered as having
> sacrificed the privilege (I won't call it a right) of possessing

nukes.

>
>
> But for the exact same reason that regime should not have

nuclear

> weapons, neither should nuclear weapons be used against them --
> because it would constitute an unacceptable danger to large

numbers of

> civilians.
>
>
> Yours in liberty,
>
> <<<<<< starchild >>>
>
>
>
>
>
> <excerpt>Ron:
>
>
>
> Nuclear technology exists. It isn't going away. One can never

be

> sure who else has a nuclear bomb, whether state, state

supported, or

> rogue individuals. That said, it's prudent for the US to have

them so

> we could retaliate.
>
>
>
>
> Dear Derek;
>
>
> Actually I think the uS policy would be best served by dis-arming
>
> and dismantling all nukes. And of course getting all the

goverments

>
> having nukes to do the same including Israel.
>
>
> Ron Getty
>
> SF Libertarian
>
>
> --- In
> <underline><color><param>1999,1999,FFFF</param>
> lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com</color></underline>,
>
> "Derek Jensen" <<derekj72@>
>
>
>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > (I was playing devil's advocate somewhat with my last

statement.)

>
> >
>
> > Do you agree that having cops' actions be less than 100%
>
> predictable
>
> > helps prevent crimes? I tend to think so, but of course, I
>
> recognize
>
> > it's a slippery slope. It's along these lines why USGov should
>
> never
>
> > renounce the use of nukes.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
> > > Derek,
>
> > >
>
> > > Speaking as one of the "criminals" (or at least as
>
> someone who the
>
> > > system has treated as such) it would be nice to have some
>
> assurance of
>
> > > rationality or due process.
>
> > >
>
> > > <<<<<< starchild >>>
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
>
> > >
>
> > > > Starchild:
>
> > > >
>
> > > > I think it may be counterproductive for criminals to be

able

>
> to count
>
> > > > on law enforcement to be always rational.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > -Derek
>
> > > >
>
>
> > > > > I'd like to see the SFPD adopt a policy of no first use

of

>
> deadly
>
> > > > > force. In other words, if you are an officer, you do not
>
> fire your
>
> > > > gun
>
> > > > > on a civilian unless the civilian fires first. You do not
>
> use your
>
> > > > > nightclub on a civilian unless the civilian attacks first
>
> (not just
>
> > > > > "lunges" or "makes a move," but actually connects or

makes a

>
> complete
>
> > > > > swing within striking distance of an officer. Etcetera. I
>
> think these
>
> > > > > killings happen in part because the rules of engagement

allow

>
> > > > officers
>
> > > > > to put their own safety ahead of the safety of civilians.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Yours in liberty,
>
> > > > > <<<<<< starchild >>>
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > >
>
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > > Dear Marcy and Everyone Else;
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > If the latest news reports are correct this is what
>
> supposedly
>
> > > > > > happened.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > The suspect staying at a friends apartment went up

into a

>
> crawl
>
> > > > space
>
> > > > > > which is about 3' high the officers supposedly did

have a

>
> > > > negotiator
>
> > > > > > try to talk the suspect come on down
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > they then went up into thecrawl space to literally try

to

>
> leverage
>
> > > > > > the suspect out. The crawl space did not have any

lights

>
> and the
>
> > > > > > officers were using flashlights
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > so you have a extremely tense situation where the

suspect

>
> > > > supposedly
>
> > > > > > said he wasn't going back into jail - refusing to come
>
> down and the
>
> > > > > > two officers not waiting to see what happens next by

just

>
> simply
>
> > > > > > waiting.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > Then the suspect pointed a glasses case but in the

dimness

>
> of the
>
> > > > > > flashlight illuminated crawlspace one officer saw the
>
> glasses case
>
> > > > as
>
> > > > > > a gun and shot actually grazing the other officer who
>
> thought she
>
> > > > had
>
> > > > > > been fired on and her shot took out the suspect.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > The suspects friend was there and did try to call down

the

>
> suspect
>
> > > > and
>
> > > > > > that didn't work Why the officers did not wait out the
>
> suspect and
>
> > > > why
>
> > > > > > they decided they had to go up into the crawl space is
>
> second
>
> > > > guessing
>
> > > > > > and Monday morning quarterbacking.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > I would hopeafter a genuine thorough investigation (

yeah

>
> right)
>
> > > > > > that the training manual is amended to reflect this

type

>
> of a
>
> > > > > > situation.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > For those of you not familiar with crawl spaces they

are

>
> narrow
>
> > > > nasty
>
> > > > > > dark filled with cross support beams and bars and

aredark

>
> with no
>
> > > > > > internal illumination. I tell you this from having had

to

>
> work in
>
> > > > such
>
> > > > > > crawl spaces back in my asst manager of an 8 story
>
> apartment
>
> > > > building
>
> > > > > > while working my way through college and having to

patch

>
> leaking
>
> > > > pipes
>
> > > > > > etc etc etclocated within these crawl spaces. Not a fun
>
> part of the
>
> > > > > > job.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > You do not go into such spaces to get someone out who
>
> doesn't want
>
> > > > to
>
> > > > > > come out you simply wait them out.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > Ron Getty
>
> > > > > > SF Libertarian
>
> > > > > >
>
>
> > > > > > From: Amarcy D. Berry <<amarcyb@>
>
> > > > > > To:
> <underline><color><param>1999,1999,FFFF</param>
> lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
>
> </color></underline>> > > > > Sent: Friday, June 9, 2006 8:49:37

PM

>
> > > > > > Subject: [lpsf-activists] Police Petition/Officer

Training

>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > As carried in the news, a couple of police officers

shot

>
> and
>
> > > > killed on
>
> > > > > > Wednesday a young man in Parkmerced, right accross the
>
> street from
>
> > > > > > where I live. The sound of gun shots is a heart

wrenching

>
> thing; I
>
> > > > > > feel for the neighborhoods that hear them often. It
>
> appears that
>
> > > > the
>
> > > > > > officers mistook an eye glasses case for a gun and

shot. I

>
> am
>
> > > > > > suggesting that we incorporate in our presentations

better

>
> police
>
> > > > > > training. Perhaps not include the idea in the Petition
>
> itself, but
>
> > > > > > suggest in our presentations that more training in

conflict

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

Dear Derek;

Since I don't get the e-mails do you include such things as embedded
articles - blog sites - URL's - advertisements etc etc etc which
could get the e-mail blocked at the yahoo servers as spam or some un-
solicited such thing so they never get past the blocking servers.

Maybe you could try a plain un-adorned bare bones e-mail as a trial
to see it it works and gets through the servers.

I notice the same happens to Morey Strauss e-mails as well - totally
blocked at the servers.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:

Ron:

It's more of my denseness I think. Growing up I often didn't get

jokes that

many others did. I took it all too literally.

I am not sure why it blocks my emails. Others have noticed this as

well.

>
> Dear Derek;
>
> Everything is real but the last 4 or so sentences. Okay?
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> BTW why is yahoo blocking your e-mails so relentlessly??
>
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%

40yahoogroups.com>,

> "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ron:
> >
> > I have trouble discerning when you are joking.
> >
> > -Derek
> >
> > >
> > > Dear Starchild;
> > >
> > > You said in part; "But for the exact same reason that regime
> should not
> > > have nuclear nuclear weapons, neither should nuclear weapons

be

> used against
> > > them -- because it would constitute an unacceptable danger to
> large numbers
> > > of civilians."
> > >
> > > In the matter of having and not having nuclear weapons would

you

> extend
> > > this to Israel who *DOES* have some 200 tactical and

strategic

> nuclear
> > > weapons and also chemical and biological weapons

capabilities?

> Should the US
> > > invade Israel because of these WMD's?
> > >
> > > Israel refuses to sign the NPT and refuses IAEE membership

which

> would
> > > mean opening their nuclear facilities to the same type of
> inspections Iran
> > > undergoes.
> > >
> > > Would you endorse requiring Israel to join and sign NPT and

The

> IAEE and
> > > opening their nuclear facilities to inspection? Then

dismantling

> their
> > > weapons of WMD?
> > >
> > > Secondly on the matter of the standard government reaction of
> using nukes
> > > against civilians it ignores the fact that rightfully the

nukes

> should be
> > > used against the government leaders who caused the problems

in

> the first
> > > place. Massacring several hundred thousand civilians because

of

> leadership
> > > hubris is a definite no no. It makes too many people glow in

the

> dark.
> > >
> > > Wipe out the government leaders not the people. Let the

morons

> who created
> > > the problems pay the price not the civilians. Decapitate the
> heads of state
> > > not the heads of the people. Bring back the guillotine to use
> against King
> > > George the II and his Royal Princes of the Court - Rumsfield
> Rice Cheney etc
> > > etc etc.... Pull up bricks from the streets to toss - man the
> barricades -
> > > storm the Bastille!!!
> > >
> > > Viva Las Revoluciones!!! "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternity"
> > >
> > > Ron Getty
> > > SF Libertarian
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Starchild <sfdreamer@>
> > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%

40yahoogroups.com>

> > > Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:37:47 PM
> > > Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Nuclear weapons/Iran (was: Police
> Petition/Officer
> > > Training)
> > >
> > > Derek,
> > >
> > > You mean so the U.S. government could retaliate. If people
> wouldn't
> > > associate themselves with national governments so much, there
> would be
> > > less incentive to attack civilians as a way of attacking or
> influencing
> > > those governments.
> > >
> > > We agree on this much however -- the regime in Iran should
> not be
> > > allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.
> > >
> > > To those who disagree with that, I urge you to consider
> whether you
> > > think it's OK to ban someone with a record of initiating
> violence from
> > > owning a firearm. Or whether it's a good idea to prevent

someone

> who
> > > expresses an interest in committing violence against children
> from
> > > working in an elementary school. If so, then I think by

similar

> logic,
> > > regimes like the one in Tehran ought to be considered as

having

> > > sacrificed the privilege (I won't call it a right) of

possessing

> nukes.
> > >
> > > But for the exact same reason that regime should not have
> nuclear
> > > weapons, neither should nuclear weapons be used against

them --

> because
> > > it would constitute an unacceptable danger to large numbers

of

> > > civilians.
> > >
> > > Yours in liberty,
> > > <<< starchild >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Ron:
> > > >
> > > > Nuclear technology exists. It isn't going away. One can
> never be
> > > > sure who else has a nuclear bomb, whether state, state
> supported, or
> > > > rogue individuals. That said, it's prudent for the US to

have

> them so
> > > > we could retaliate.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Derek;
> > > >
> > > > Actually I think the uS policy would be best served by dis-
> arming
> > > > and dismantling all nukes. And of course getting all the
> goverments
> > > > having nukes to do the same including Israel.
> > > >
> > > > Ron Getty
> > > > SF Libertarian
> > > >
> > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%

40yahoogroups.com>,

> "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > (I was playing devil's advocate somewhat with my last
> statement.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you agree that having cops' actions be less than 100%
> > > > predictable
> > > > > helps prevent crimes? I tend to think so, but of course,

I

> > > > recognize
> > > > > it's a slippery slope. It's along these lines why USGov
> should
> > > > never
> > > > > renounce the use of nukes.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Derek,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Speaking as one of the "criminals" (or at least as
> > > > someone who the
> > > > > > system has treated as such) it would be nice to have

some

> > > > assurance of
> > > > > > rationality or due process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <<< starchild >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Starchild:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think it may be counterproductive for criminals to

be

> able
> > > > to count
> > > > > > > on law enforcement to be always rational.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Derek
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd like to see the SFPD adopt a policy of no first
> use of
> > > > deadly
> > > > > > > > force. In other words, if you are an officer, you

do

> not
> > > > fire your
> > > > > > > gun
> > > > > > > > on a civilian unless the civilian fires first. You

do

> not
> > > > use your
> > > > > > > > nightclub on a civilian unless the civilian attacks
> first
> > > > (not just
> > > > > > > > "lunges" or "makes a move," but actually connects

or

> makes a
> > > > complete
> > > > > > > > swing within striking distance of an officer.
> Etcetera. I
> > > > think these
> > > > > > > > killings happen in part because the rules of
> engagement allow
> > > > > > > officers
> > > > > > > > to put their own safety ahead of the safety of
> civilians.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yours in liberty,
> > > > > > > > <<< starchild >>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dear Marcy and Everyone Else;
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If the latest news reports are correct this is

what

> > > > supposedly
> > > > > > > > > happened.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The suspect staying at a friends apartment went

up

> into a
> > > > crawl
> > > > > > > space
> > > > > > > > > which is about 3' high the officers supposedly

did

> have a
> > > > > > > negotiator
> > > > > > > > > try to talk the suspect come on down
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > they then went up into thecrawl space to

literally

> try to
> > > > leverage
> > > > > > > > > the suspect out. The crawl space did not have any
> lights
> > > > and the
> > > > > > > > > officers were using flashlights
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > so you have a extremely tense situation where the
> suspect
> > > > > > > supposedly
> > > > > > > > > said he wasn't going back into jail - refusing to
> come
> > > > down and the
> > > > > > > > > two officers not waiting to see what happens

next by

> just
> > > > simply
> > > > > > > > > waiting.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Then the suspect pointed a glasses case but in

the

> dimness
> > > > of the
> > > > > > > > > flashlight illuminated crawlspace one officer

saw the

> > > > glasses case
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > a gun and shot actually grazing the other

officer who

> > > > thought she
> > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > been fired on and her shot took out the suspect.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The suspects friend was there and did try to call
> down the
> > > > suspect
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > that didn't work Why the officers did not wait

out

> the
> > > > suspect and
> > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > they decided they had to go up into the crawl

space

> is
> > > > second
> > > > > > > guessing
> > > > > > > > > and Monday morning quarterbacking.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I would hopeafter a genuine thorough

investigation (

> yeah
> > > > right)
> > > > > > > > > that the training manual is amended to reflect

this

> type
> > > > of a
> > > > > > > > > situation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For those of you not familiar with crawl spaces

they

> are
> > > > narrow
> > > > > > > nasty
> > > > > > > > > dark filled with cross support beams and bars and
> aredark
> > > > with no
> > > > > > > > > internal illumination. I tell you this from

having

> had to
> > > > work in
> > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > crawl spaces back in my asst manager of an 8

story

> > > > apartment
> > > > > > > building
> > > > > > > > > while working my way through college and having

to

> patch
> > > > leaking
> > > > > > > pipes
> > > > > > > > > etc etc etclocated within these crawl spaces.

Not a

> fun
> > > > part of the
> > > > > > > > > job.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You do not go into such spaces to get someone

out who

> > > > doesn't want
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > come out you simply wait them out.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ron Getty
> > > > > > > > > SF Libertarian
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: Amarcy D. Berry <amarcyb@>
> > > > > > > > > To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com<lpsf-

activists%40yahoogroups.com>

> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, June 9, 2006 8:49:37 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: [lpsf-activists] Police Petition/Officer
> Training
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As carried in the news, a couple of police

officers

> shot
> > > > and
> > > > > > > killed on
> > > > > > > > > Wednesday a young man in Parkmerced, right

accross

> the
> > > > street from
> > > > > > > > > where I live. The sound of gun shots is a heart
> wrenching
> > > > thing; I
> > > > > > > > > feel for the neighborhoods that hear them often.

It

> > > > appears that
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > officers mistook an eye glasses case for a gun

and

> shot. I
> > > > am
> > > > > > > > > suggesting that we incorporate in our

presentations

> better
> > > > police
> > > > > > > > > training. Perhaps not include the idea in the
> Petition
> > > > itself, but
> > > > > > > > > suggest in our presentations that more training

in

> conflict
> > > > > > > resolution
> > > > > > > > > could be achieved if the officers were not

deployed

> to
> > > > useless
> > > > > > > tasks.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Marcy
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Derek,
> > >
> > >
> > > You mean so the U.S. government could retaliate. If people
> wouldn't
> > > associate themselves with national governments so much, there
> would be
> > > less incentive to attack civilians as a way of attacking or
> > > influencing those governments.
> > >
> > >
> > > We agree on this much however -- the regime in Iran should
> not be
> > > allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.
> > >
> > >
> > > To those who disagree with that, I urge you to consider
> whether you
> > > think it's OK to ban someone with a record of initiating
> violence from
> > > owning a firearm. Or whether it's a good idea to prevent

someone

> who
> > > expresses an interest in committing violence against children
> from
> > > working in an elementary school. If so, then I think by

similar

> logic,
> > > regimes like the one in Tehran ought to be considered as

having

> > > sacrificed the privilege (I won't call it a right) of

possessing

> nukes.
> > >
> > >
> > > But for the exact same reason that regime should not have
> nuclear
> > > weapons, neither should nuclear weapons be used against

them --

> > > because it would constitute an unacceptable danger to large
> numbers of
> > > civilians.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yours in liberty,
> > >
> > > <<<<<< starchild >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <excerpt>Ron:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nuclear technology exists. It isn't going away. One can never
> be
> > > sure who else has a nuclear bomb, whether state, state
> supported, or
> > > rogue individuals. That said, it's prudent for the US to have
> them so
> > > we could retaliate.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/9/06, <bold>tradergroupe</bold>
> > >

<<<underline><color><param>1999,1999,FFFF</param>tradergroupe@

>
> > > </color></underline>>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Derek;
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually I think the uS policy would be best served by dis-

arming

> > >
> > > and dismantling all nukes. And of course getting all the
> goverments
> > >
> > > having nukes to do the same including Israel.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ron Getty
> > >
> > > SF Libertarian
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > <underline><color><param>1999,1999,FFFF</param>
> > > lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> </color></underline>,
> > >
> > > "Derek Jensen" <<derekj72@>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > (I was playing devil's advocate somewhat with my last
> statement.)
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Do you agree that having cops' actions be less than 100%
> > >
> > > predictable
> > >
> > > > helps prevent crimes? I tend to think so, but of course, I
> > >
> > > recognize
> > >
> > > > it's a slippery slope. It's along these lines why USGov

should

> > >
> > > never
> > >
> > > > renounce the use of nukes.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Derek,
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > Speaking as one of the "criminals" (or at least as
> > >
> > > someone who the
> > >
> > > > > system has treated as such) it would be nice to have some
> > >
> > > assurance of
> > >
> > > > > rationality or due process.
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > <<<<<< starchild >>>
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > Starchild:
> > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > I think it may be counterproductive for criminals to be
> able
> > >
> > > to count
> > >
> > > > > > on law enforcement to be always rational.
> > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > -Derek
> > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to see the SFPD adopt a policy of no first

use

> of
> > >
> > > deadly
> > >
> > > > > > > force. In other words, if you are an officer, you do

not

> > >
> > > fire your
> > >
> > > > > > gun
> > >
> > > > > > > on a civilian unless the civilian fires first. You

do not

> > >
> > > use your
> > >
> > > > > > > nightclub on a civilian unless the civilian attacks

first

> > >
> > > (not just
> > >
> > > > > > > "lunges" or "makes a move," but actually connects or
> makes a
> > >
> > > complete
> > >
> > > > > > > swing within striking distance of an officer.

Etcetera. I

> > >
> > > think these
> > >
> > > > > > > killings happen in part because the rules of

engagement

> allow
> > >
> > > > > > officers
> > >
> > > > > > > to put their own safety ahead of the safety of

civilians.

> > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > > Yours in liberty,
> > >
> > > > > > > <<<<<< starchild >>>
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > Dear Marcy and Everyone Else;
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > If the latest news reports are correct this is what
> > >
> > > supposedly
> > >
> > > > > > > > happened.
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > The suspect staying at a friends apartment went up
> into a
> > >
> > > crawl
> > >
> > > > > > space
> > >
> > > > > > > > which is about 3' high the officers supposedly did
> have a
> > >
> > > > > > negotiator
> > >
> > > > > > > > try to talk the suspect come on down
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > they then went up into thecrawl space to literally

try

> to
> > >
> > > leverage
> > >
> > > > > > > > the suspect out. The crawl space did not have any
> lights
> > >
> > > and the
> > >
> > > > > > > > officers were using flashlights
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > so you have a extremely tense situation where the
> suspect
> > >
> > > > > > supposedly
> > >
> > > > > > > > said he wasn't going back into jail - refusing to

come

> > >
> > > down and the
> > >
> > > > > > > > two officers not waiting to see what happens next

by

> just
> > >
> > > simply
> > >
> > > > > > > > waiting.
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > Then the suspect pointed a glasses case but in the
> dimness
> > >
> > > of the
> > >
> > > > > > > > flashlight illuminated crawlspace one officer saw

the

> > >
> > > glasses case
> > >
> > > > > > as
> > >
> > > > > > > > a gun and shot actually grazing the other officer

who

> > >
> > > thought she
> > >
> > > > > > had
> > >
> > > > > > > > been fired on and her shot took out the suspect.
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > The suspects friend was there and did try to call

down

> the
> > >
> > > suspect
> > >
> > > > > > and
> > >
> > > > > > > > that didn't work Why the officers did not wait out

the

> > >
> > > suspect and
> > >
> > > > > > why
> > >
> > > > > > > > they decided they had to go up into the crawl

space is

> > >
> > > second
> > >
> > > > > > guessing
> > >
> > > > > > > > and Monday morning quarterbacking.
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > I would hopeafter a genuine thorough investigation

(

> yeah
> > >
> > > right)
> > >
> > > > > > > > that the training manual is amended to reflect this
> type
> > >
> > > of a
> > >
> > > > > > > > situation.
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > For those of you not familiar with crawl spaces

they

> are
> > >
> > > narrow
> > >
> > > > > > nasty
> > >
> > > > > > > > dark filled with cross support beams and bars and
> aredark
> > >
> > > with no
> > >
> > > > > > > > internal illumination. I tell you this from having

had

> to
> > >
> > > work in
> > >
> > > > > > such
> > >
> > > > > > > > crawl spaces back in my asst manager of an 8 story
> > >
> > > apartment
> > >
> > > > > > building
> > >
> > > > > > > > while working my way through college and having to
> patch
> > >
> > > leaking
> > >
> > > > > > pipes
> > >
> > > > > > > > etc etc etclocated within these crawl spaces. Not

a fun

> > >
> > > part of the
> > >
> > > > > > > > job.
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > You do not go into such spaces to get someone out

who

> > >
> > > doesn't want
> > >
> > > > > > to
> > >
> > > > > > > > come out you simply wait them out.
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > Ron Getty
> > >
> > > > > > > > SF Libertarian
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > From: Amarcy D. Berry <<amarcyb@>
> > >
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > <underline><color><param>1999,1999,FFFF</param>
> > > lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-activists%

40yahoogroups.com>

> > >
> > > </color></underline>> > > > > Sent: Friday, June 9, 2006

8:49:37

> PM
> > >
> > > > > > > > Subject: [lpsf-activists] Police Petition/Officer
> Training
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > As carried in the news, a couple of police officers
> shot
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > > > > killed on
> > >
> > > > > > > > Wednesday a young man in Parkmerced, right accross

the

> > >
> > > street from
> > >
> > > > > > > > where I live. The sound of gun shots is a heart
> wrenching
> > >
> > > thing; I
> > >
> > > > > > > > feel for the neighborhoods that hear them often. It
> > >
> > > appears that
> > >
> > > > > > the
> > >
> > > > > > > > officers mistook an eye glasses case for a gun and
> shot. I
> > >
> > > am
> > >
> > > > > > > > suggesting that we incorporate in our presentations
> better
> > >
> > > police
> > >
> > > > > > > > training. Perhaps not include the idea in the

Petition

> > >
> > > itself, but
> > >
> > > > > > > > suggest in our presentations that more training in
> conflict
> > >
> > > > > > resolution
> > >
> > > > > > > > could be achieved if the officers were not

deployed to

Ron,

  I am in favor of the elimination of all nuclear weapons, including those presumably possessed by the Israeli government (IsraelGov). And for government leaders putting themselves at risk rather than civilians.

  However I do not view IsraelGov and the Iranian regime (IranGov) as equally dangerous or equally legitimate. No existing national government in the world is legitimate, but some are more legitimate than others.

  Iran ranks far below Israel in various indexes of freedom. IranGov supports groups like Hamas that deliberately target civilians. It executes homosexuals. It is a theocracy run by Islamic fundamentalists. Its president, who is himself believed to have been among the group of extremists who took USgov embassy personnel hostage in 1979, has threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

  Do you believe that this group having nuclear weapons is no more of a problem than USgov or IsraelGov having nuclear weapons? If so, I must disagree.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

Harland,

  Libertarians in the United States spend most of their political energy opposing the U.S. government (USgov), and understandably so. A drawback of this circumstance, however, is that it can become force of habit to automatically oppose USgov even in situations where to do so is *not* to side with freedom, for example when USgov is in conflict with another government, or regime, that is much more oppressive. I think we should regularly remind ourselves that as bad as USgov is, most of the world's governments are even worse in most respects.

  We are in agreement that governments are not persons. Because they are not individuals, they have no sovereign rights. But they can have track records. Authoritarian leaders often do seek to stir up fear and hatred against enemies abroad. An even more common tactic among them is to attempt to hide their crimes behind the shield of "national sovereignty" and to use nationalism to stir up opposition to "foreign" intervention, when in reality they themselves are the worst enemies of "their own" people.

  I trust that as a libertarian, you would agree that the regime in Iran is highly oppressive, and that if we were living in a world where governments never acted against each other, that you would donate to a campaign to remove the regime and replace it with a government more respecting of freedom and human rights. Unfortunately however, the tendency among oppressive regimes to use nationalism to bolster their own positions by focusing on enemies abroad means that the accusation of bolstering a regime's domestic standing that you level against the U.S. government with regard to the Iranian regime would apply equally to a *non-government* campaign against the Iranian regime.

  Assuming you believe that it's OK and even good for individuals and voluntary groups to speak out against oppression and human rights abuses around the world, we must accept that tyrants seeking to use such attacks to bolster their domestic standing simply comes with the territory. Therefore this is not a point that can fairly be argued against USgov in the present circumstances, since it is a criticism that could equally apply to the kind of libertarian campaign against IranGov that we would all presumably support.

  Oppressive regimes only benefit from opposition abroad when that opposition is muted or ineffective. Obviously USgov opposition to Saddam Hussein's rule did not ultimately make him stronger, since he is now out of power and sitting in jail. Nor -- to use an example you should appreciate -- does it appear to me that the unpopularity of the Bush administration among much of the world has improved Bush's domestic position. Many other examples could be given, but I hope the point is clear. It is important that we, the people of the world, speak out and act against injustice, and not be shamed into silence by the false doctrine that our righteous anger against oppression merely helps the oppressors.

  You refer to the "axis of evil" as "imaginary." Is this because you think there is no significant cooperation between the regimes in Iran and North Korea, or because you think the actions of those regimes are not, on the whole, evil?

  You also say that George Bush is killing more innocent Iraqis every day. Do you really care about the innocent Iraqis? If so, you should be willing to consider *all* possible solutions for improving their condition, and not only those solutions which do not involve military intervention by other governments.

  Right now, Iraq has a government which came to power in elections generally recognized as fair. USgov and allied military forces are in Iraq as guests of that government. They are there attempting to put down an insurgency which along with attempting to destroy the country's infrastructure, does not merely have a reckless disregard for civilian life (a charge which can often be justifiably leveled against the U.S. military), but whose policy has been the *deliberate targeting* of civilians for abduction and killing. This is not an insignificant distinction -- it is the difference between manslaughter and murder. I also know of no efforts by the Iraqi insurgents to disavow Al Qaeda, a murderous terrorist organization which should be recognized as the enemy by all civilized people and which appears to be playing a major role in the insurgency.

  I believe that a principled, objective (rather than knee-jerk anti-USgov) anti-war position would oppose withdrawal of U.S.-led coalition forces from Iraq at this time, since their withdrawal would likely create a power vacuum that would exacerbate the conflict rather than ending it, and result in an increase rather than a decrease in the rate of civilian casualties.

  And a principled, objective (rather than knee-jerk anti-USgov) anti-intervention position would demand the withdrawal of Al Qaeda from Iraq at least as strongly as demanding the withdrawal of the USgov military from Iraq. Since you appear to be publicly calling for the withdrawal of USgov forces regardless of what Al Qaeda in Iraq does, will you also publicly call for the Al Qaeda to get out of Iraq regardless of what USgov does there?

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

P.S. - You attribute 100,000 deaths of innocent Iraqis to the USgov military. How many deaths of innocent Iraqis do you attribute to the insurgency, and how do you arrive at those numbers? Surely it is not your position that since USgov allegedly started the war (I would argue that it really started in 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait), the insurgents are not to blame for any deaths, and no matter how many people they kill now, USgov, not them, will be primarily responsible for those deaths? If that is your position, then to be consistent you must blame the Japanese regime during WWII, rather than the Truman administration, for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, since they started the war.

Dear Starchild;

I do beleive that if they had yes a Problemo - but right now they are a good 5 - 6 years away from having anything that would be considered a single nuclear weapon. Then this weapon would be of the implosion type to set off the nuclear aspects. This means it would be about the type like the original Fat Man A-bomb the US built and weigh about 1,000 pounds and would be 10 long and five foot around. Not exactly a suitcase bomb.

However, even if they have this potential this does not mean the Bush regime should be using this as a pretext to nuke Iran today killing 10,000 of thousands to hundreds of thousands of innocent "collateral damage" civilians and letting the government heads escape the "fallout."

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian