>> The parents' belief is irrelevent. They did not see it. If the son was truly
>> suicidal, he may (another guess) have decided to force the police to end his
>> life. We will never know. Wild guesses serve no purpose other than to
>> inflame people's emotions.
>
> Why are the parents' beliefs irrelevant? Are only the beliefs and desires
> of the police relevant? If so, we have the makings of a police state.
and in your other email
> It seems strange that you take the hard-nosed approach to the wild-guesses
> of the writer of the leaflet, which actually don't seem so wild, but ignore
> the wild and deadly guesses of the police. The point is that the police
> just came in and started shooting. Why? M. Losonsky
I don't think your question is relevant to NativeNet but since you missed the
point, perhaps some clarification is in order.
This was the most minor of my points, but since you asked...the belief of
the parents on their son's actions is irrelevant. They did not see it. They
cannot know what was inside their son's head when he was depressed, suicidal
and facing three armed police officers. The officers may be lying through
there teeth, but without any evidence to the contrary, stating it is merely
inflammatory, because it will not stand up to the light of debate nor would
it be valid in a court, civil or criminal.
Police officers do lie. I know it, I have seen it. But what if these officers
aren't lying. How is the injustice of falsely accusing them of first degree
murder (if they were not in danger, they did indeed murder the man) justified?
Re-read my letter. If you take the time you will notice I did say they were
guilty of his death. By forcing the situation, a death occurred that may not
have. But that does not mean the suicidal man did not act as the officers
described, only that they acted improperly and forced the situation into
only two possible outcomes. But the guilt may not be their's as individuals.
People tend to act as they have been taught. If their department teaches them
the methods they used that resulted in the shooting, then coming down on the
officers misses the point and allows the department a convenient scapegoat,
and real change will not occur.
In case it was not obvious, the original missive had a guess of my own. That
guess was not to justify the action of the police, but to demonstrate that
alternative guesses are easily made, showing the irrelevance of guessing.
IF ANYONE WISHES TO TAKE THIS UP FURTHER, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE ISSUES RAISED
IN MY LETTER TO BE DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THIS NEWSGROUP. A newsgroup on
police-public relations or police culture or police in general would be more
appropriate. If anyone wishes to take me to task on this, my email address is
below. I don't promise I will reply, but you can blow steam without forcing
everyone else to read it.
----
John R Veregge Section 348 - Flight Command and Data
Jet Propulsion Laboratory Management (Technology Development)
Calif Institute of Technology Mail stop: T1704, Office: T1704-J
4800 Oak Grove Drive Phone: (818) 354-0511, FAX: 393-4089
Pasadena, CA, USA 91109 EMail: john@triton.jpl.nasa.gov