From: Ernest Hua <hua@xenon.chromatic.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 11:23:54 +0800
To: harka@nycmetro.com
Subject: Re: Responding to Pre-daw
In-Reply-To: <TCPSMTP.16.7.19.-13.18.40.2780269260.1198984@nycmetro.com>
Message-ID: <199607192338.QAA24445@server1.chromatic.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> > > Except that getting killed in a traffic accident IS an accident (mostly :)
> > > while having black clad Fed's storming into your house was _consciously_
> > > decided by them, because THEY have a problem with YOUR guns (?!)...
> >
> > I think the original point was that they MIGHT storm into your house
> > by mistake (say, because they incorrectly accepted a informant's
> > story). Therefore, it is truly a mistake.
> 
> Well, not really. It would be severe case of neglegence which is not the
> same as a mistake. When you drive, you have to prove that you know what
> you are doing by getting a driver's licence.

Uh ... I think you missed the point of my mail.  I think I explained it
later on, but here it is in different words.  It may be clearer this time.

> If you are a SWAT guy and some informer would come along and say "This
> and that person is a terrorist, I know for sure" and you go into that
> house and shoot everything that moves, well, doesn't sound much like an
> accident to me...

I think it would be unfortunate if you think that SWAT team members are
trained to storm in and shoot anything that moves.  They are trained to
provide protection to themselves while attempting to apprehend the
target.  That, to you, may be a subtle difference, but it make a big
difference to me:

1.  In your interpretation, they literally rampage through the target
    site without much regard for the destruction they may cause.

2.  In my interpretation, they are trying their best to balance the
    need to quickly apprehend the target, with the serious potential of
    being harmed in the process.

In circumstances where there is beyond a shadow of a doubt that the
target is criminal, then I would support their actions fully.  But
it is clear that mistakes have been made in the past.  The tragic
consequences of those mistakes are unforgivable.  Therefore, the
mistakes MUST be prevented.

That said, I think, in most cases (and I believe most LE believe
this too), there does not need to be a violent conflict.

I believe they can choose a different scenario.  They do not have to
choose a scenario where they have to be in immediate danger.  The
recent Montana standoff is an example where government agents did
NOT choose to storm in (good or bad decision is another debate).

It is not unreasonable to be scared into doing irrational things if
someone storms into your house at 4am.  However, if you get a phone
call saying your house is surrounded, you might have more time to
think straight and realize that there is some horrible mistake.

And, as far as I know, it is perfectly legal to be a little paranoid.

Ern