On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Kevin Tarr wrote: > I don't like these splitting hair arguments, but there have been plenty > of police who have legally killed individuals who were not firing > weapons at the officers. The Learning Channel, or some show like it, > showed police in LA killing the driver of a stolen army tank. The tank > had killed no one, just caused massive destruction. The tank was > stopped, it had driven onto a concrete wall and broken it's track. The > police rushed the tank, popped the top, and told the guy to get out. > When he didn't....bang. No tear gas, no wounding shot. > > Even in Alberto's example, what if a cop got to the same floor as a > person shooting at people below him. Yes the cop(s) would be in danger > if the guy whirls around and starts shooting, but they aren't in > immediate self-defense danger. Should police sharp shooters never fire? > Or be trained to shoot guns out of criminal's hands? > > I understand your point, that uncontrolled hunter killer teams shouldn't > be tolerated but I cannot say never because there may be a time when > such methods are necessary.
I agree that protecting the public takes precedence over procedure. And terrorism is a sticky case--it's hard to know whether to handle the subject in terms of criminality or warfare, since the stakes are so high. But the example I'm concerned about is the business of hunting down (alleged) terrorists after the fact and assassinating them without any kind of public trial or public show of evidence. Once a procedure like that is permitted, the state suddenly gains a degree of power it should never have. Marvin Long Austin, Texas
