XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.thebird.copwatch, nyc.general   
   XPost: alt.true-crime   
      
   On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 17:11:31 GMT, Morf  wrote:   
      
   >frog wrote:   
   >>   
   >> "LaW Man"  wrote in   
   >> > Well, it seems we agree on this point. Thanks.   
   >>   
   >> I need a little help on this please.  Is this how officers of the   
   law   
   >> are trained to deal with citizens who are mental patients?   
   >   
   >   
   >Yes, even though they are likely NOT guilty.   
   >   
   >Cops today are taught the presumption of guilt allowing immediate   
   >execution   
   >of mentally ill persons.   
   >   
   >> I am not   
   >> condemning all officers of the law with my posting of these   
   articles.   
   >> I am concerned, for one reason, because my younger sister is   
   >> schizophrenic. So, therefore, I do have experience on these   
   matters. I   
   >> have never had to use deadly force on her to protect her, myself or   
   >> anyone else (yes there have been irrational moments of danger).   
   Are   
   >> some officers who choose to use deadly force allowed to be judge,   
   >> jury, and executioner, so to speak?   
   >   
   >Cops consider themselves to be Gods.   
   >   
   >> It seems to me it is highly   
   >> possible too unarm a citizen of a knife with a baton bat to the   
   wrist,   
   >> etc.  How do officers of the law go from initiating a taser   
   subduction   
   >> to two fatal shots in the chest, avoiding attacking the shoulders   
   >> first and then the legs? This officer has but 2 1/2 years   
   experience.   
   >> Does anyone think this may have been a factor?   
   >> I end up with more questions than answers on this. Again I am not   
   here   
   >> to condemmn all officers of the law, but I am allowed to question   
   some   
   >> of their actions. Any response is greatly appreciated.   -frog   
   >   
   >   
   >John Hinckley shot the President.   
   >   
   >He was also found to be not guilty.   
   >   
   >The right to a quick and speedy trial has been replaced with the   
   right   
   >to   
   >be executed by cops who get to decide who deserves to die.   
      
   The police are allowed to protect themsleves and others from imminant   
   danger.  If that means taking the life of a mentally ill person thn so   
   be it.   
      
   If you were attacked or threatened by a mentally ill person with a   
   weapon, would you defend yourself or allow yourself to be killed in   
   the hopes that your death would bring about an increase in mental   
   heath care spending?   
   --   
   Like a game of pick up stick played by fucking lunatics   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)