Uechi-Ryu.com

Here's a "tough issue" in some people's minds...


Things to consider/remember when reading the story:

1) In the U.S. and Canada, generally (it depends on the judge) all it takes to obtain a no knock search warrant is an accusation of drugs and/or guns from an "anonymous source."

2) In the U.S. and Canada, many departments SOP is to perform "no knocks" in the wee hours of the morning to catch the unsuspecting suspects at a disadvantage.

3) How would you react to someone breaking in your door?

4) Now think how you would react if the person breaking in wasn't identifying themselves as police officers, don't have (or won't produce) a search warrant? (Do you honestly think you'll hear them "identify" themselves if you are startled awake in the early hours of the morning?

5) I don't have any positive information, but second-hand information from e-mails suggests that there were no female officers available for the interrogation and strip search. Assuming (as a hypothetical) that were true: For the men reading, how would you feel about having your beloved wife violated this way? For the women, is this an acceptable inevitability of an erroneous police raid or do you consider this to be an equivalent to a form of state-sponsored rape?


This comes from The Sunday Times out of Australia for Sunday, 1/7/01:


Police raid bungle frightens family
By JIM KELLY
07jan01

A THORNLIE man had guns thrust at his head and his wife was strip searched in a bungled police raid.

Mickey and Adriana Chopra, who have no criminal convictions, claim they were wrongly targeted.

Police failed to find drugs or guns on the property and have apologised to the young couple.

The Chopras were preparing to go out with their one-year-old son last Saturday about 9am when about 13 organised crime squad officers stormed their home and smashed through the front door.

Mr Chopra said he had a gun held to his cheek and another to the back of his head before he was thrown to the kitchen floor and handcuffed.

His wife, who was holding their frightened son, was later subjected to a strip search.

"They just broke through the front door screaming get down, get down. It was terrifying," Mrs Chopra said.

The Chopras claim police acted on wrong information supplied by a man who had come to their home to look at a stereo system they were selling. Mr Chopra said police told him the man was a drug dealer.

"Our baby is usually at the front door waiting to get out to play at that time of the morning. It's just lucky he wasn't sitting there when the police broke in because he could have been killed," he said. "It's scary to think that anybody off the street can make claims about a person and police respond like this."

A police spokesman said the officers had grounds to carry out the search, which was executed in line with normal procedure.

He said police had apologised to the family and would pay for damage to the property.

Incidentally, I heard a line on Frasier tonight that might interest you, P. Or drive you completely nuts. Scared ME, at least

Niles asked his father for a firearm to borrow while his electronic security was down.

His father refused, saying, "I just don't think civilians should have guns."

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ian:
Incidentally, I heard a line on Frasier tonight that might interest you, P. Or drive you completely nuts. Scared ME, at least

Niles asked his father for a firearm to borrow while his electronic security was down.

His father refused, saying, "I just don't think civilians should have guns."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kelsey Grammer is not only an alcoholic who feels like he can't control his own urges and anger, but he has a bad case of "projection" onto others who don't have those problems. He's an anti-gun socialist and that shows up in the show and the collegues he maintains. I never watch the show, but have seen a few taped snippets that other gun owners have recorded to show the blatent bias of the show. In one such snippet, Niles is walking across the room with a gun when he stumbles and the gun "just goes off". Anyone that knows anything about guns knows that they do not "just go off". I will turn off the visual toilet rather than watch anything with certain hypocrites starring. That includes Kelsey Grammer and Rosie O... among numerous others.

(No, I don't watch too much of the visual toilet, preferring a few specific shows, videos and books instead... )

Thank You, Canna-sensei. Don Kates has written some excellent treatise on this issue and has a propensity to cut to the heart of the matter.

I've noticed more and more that people who seem to take these anti-gun positions have an underlying tendancy not to trust other people to do the right thing without some form of controls in place. It's almost as if these people have an inner belief that if they were given the opportunity, they would use a firearm to settle a disagreement over a parking space or getting a traffic ticket or having a neighbor who plays their stereo too loud. These are the types who invariably lament that shall-issue CCW permits will "throw us back to the wild west days of blood in the streets". What they fail to realize, is that in those "wild west days" the general population lead rather peaceful lives and the "blood in the streets" was mainly between "good guys" and "bad guys"... With the "good guys" being lawful citizens or "peace officers" (interesting how that has been changed to "law enforcement officers", isn't it...) and the "bad guys" being the equivalent at the time of our modern day criminals and "gang-bangers". As you know, mental health professionals have even classified this and, in fact, call it "projection". Sometimes the person projects their fear of being unable to control their own inner rage onto other people, and sometimes they project that fear onto an inanimate object. Very often a firearm. this is one of the prime ways that some people become hoplophobic with an irrational fear of guns. Using logic and detailed sources and cites rarely gets through to these types of individuals who are caught up in illogical and emotional reactions based on an unconcious psychological defense mechanism. In other words, no matter how much they are shown that they are actually safer in the company of lawful citizens who are armed, these people still feel threatened by those arms and those citizens.

Given the constant barrage of misinformation coming from the media, anti-gun organizations, some political organizations and many hollywood celebrities, it is understandable that many people fall into that mindset. (to steal your phrase) Those groups, organizations and individuals further themselves and their agendas through creating more "victims" and by fostering a victim mentality, victim mindset, or victim sympathetic/empathetic belief in their converts. We can only hope that many of these people can be shown that they don't have to be "victims" and, in truth, can control, protect and defend themselves from not only the imaginary "boogey-man" they've been told lives in the hearts of gun owners, but also the very real "boogey-man" who may someday invade their home or confront them on the street.

When the rights and/or methods for honest citizens to defend themselves from those who would deny them their rights "under color of law" are taken away, we will have come, by definition, to live under "martial law". The Framers of most State Constitutions, as well as the Framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized that all too well...

It is interesting to note, that in this day and time, the best way to be considered an extremist, an enemy of the State, is to espouse the very beliefs and words that our Founding Fathers used to create a new Nation ~225 years ago...

As I've written before:

If you think you need government agents with guns to make you do the right thing, you need to get help.

If you think others need government agents with guns to make them do the right thing, you need to get humble.

AND

If you think I need government agents with guns to make me do the right thing, you need to get bent!



(This post written with all due credit to all those I just stole ideals and words from... )


[This message has been edited by Panther (edited January 09, 2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>NON-EMPIRICAL (MORAL AND PHILISOPHICAL) CONSIDERATIONS

Some analysts see in the notoriously extreme bitterness of the gun control debate a clash of cultural and ethical values disguised in more or less pseudo-criminological terms. The proposition is not that criminological disagreement is not a part of "the Great American Gun War" but that such disagreement is minor in comparison to the violent cultural and moral antagonism it cloaks. [8]

Indicative of the depth of those antagonisms is the description offered in the encyclopedic review of American gun control literature done by the University of Massachusetts for the National Institute of Justice): that many gun control advocates seriously view gun owners as "demented and blood- thirsty psychopaths whose concept of fun is to rain death on innocent creatures, both human and otherwise" [8A]; that gun ownership is "simply beastly behavior" the gun being both real and symbolic mechanism of a peculiar savagery lurking in an American soul that is "hard, isolate, stoic and a killer".

[9] As one would expect, the pro- gun is utterly different; as Col. Jeff Cooper, one of the more articulate spokesmen for defense gun ownership, puts it:

Weapons compound man's power to achieve; they amplify the capabilities of both the good man and the bad, and to exactly the same degree, having no will of their own. Thus, we must regard them as servants, not masters -- and good servants to good men. Without them, man is diminished, and his opportunities to fulfill his destiny are lessened. An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it. [10]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


***

This article is copyrighted. It was provided by the author, Don B. Kates, Jr., and is distributed with the permission of the author. It can be uploaded to other BBSs as long as it is not altered, and it may be cited as long as credit is given. As per Don Kates' note:

"If you publish this, you must indicate that it is the text and footnotes to an article that appeared in v. 18 of the AMERICAN J. OF CRIM. LAW (1991)." So noted.



------------------
Van Canna

Disclaimer: I agree with the quote *in general*.

Weapons: "Without them, man is diminished, and his opportunities to fulfill his destiny are lessened. An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it. [10]"

I know a few people who would fight you on this one, Sensei Canna--Ghandi, or Martin Luther King Jr, for instance. I guess it's "would have fought."

In their fights, the phrase would have gone, "WITH them, man is diminished." What won their battle was not force but the obvious righteousness of their positions. This was made clear not only without weapons, but, BY their not having weapons. They and their followers did not, of course, run from evil, but rather stood up to it was astonishing bravery. In fact I'd generally rather stand up to evil with a gun than not.

Now none of this would have helped Ghandi or MLK if Nazis had tried to load them onto cattlecars in wartime Germany. Or when I got jumped by a small group on my college campus. (I fled, evil was not overcome, although that would have been prudent even had I brought a weapon along.) Which is why I agree with the quote you posted *in general*.

On another front, does anything know about any correlation between prochoice v prolife and gun control views? Because if my guess is right, pro gun control people probably have a good percentage of prochoice among them. And this has implications for the theory that antigunners are "people who... have an underlying tendancy not to trust other people to do the right thing without some form of controls in place." I wonder what would be the distinction in their minds or, if another psychopathology were responsible.

[This message has been edited by Ian (edited January 11, 2001).]

Panther:

Thanks for the forum and the post. It raises several issues, not the least of which is the conflict between those who support the Second Amendment, and those who would limit its scope.

But, your post also encompasses far broader issues. The insane war on drugs, and its companion errosion of American liberty. No knock warrants. Would the founding fathers and framers of the Fourth Amendment have stood for such tyranny from the British? I think not.

In addition to an errosion of liberty, the war on drugs also leads to almost daily tragedy, as innocent individuals are killed or injured by police officers. Yesterday, a California plain clothes police officer was shot and killed by uniformed officers. Why? Because he had his gun pointed at a fleeing suspect. The officer was armed and not recognized by the uniformed officers.

In my area, a man carrying a sword was recently shot by the police for refusing to put down the sword. Nobody suggested he attacked anyone with the sword, or was posing a threat to anybody, it's just that he seemed odd and was carrying a weapon. Apparently seeming odd and possessing a weapon is now probable cause and justifiable reason for shooting a person.

Would these events have occurred prior to America's war on drugs? Perhaps. But one must wonder about the impact of the war on drugs on the collective psyche of America's police officers. Police officers tend to become distrustful on those outside the criminal justice system in the normal course of a career. With the heightened antipathy toward toward individual rights fostered by the war on drugs, one is left to wonder if the police have become even less tolerant in their approach to handling various situations.

I believe it is time to reexamine America's drug policy and begin treating drugs as the health issue that it is, rather than continuing to criminalize the problem at the expense of fundamental liberty.

Thanks, and now I will step away from the soap box.

Peace.
Robb in Sacramento

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robb in Sacramento:

Thanks, and now I will step away from the soap box.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


By all means... DON'T!

A discussion of these other issues is just the type of thing this forum is about... We could continue it in this thread, but I'd much prefer another thread get started for the specific issue(s).

Rob, if you'd like to start a thread about "the War on (some) Drugs", feel free. If you don't, I'll just steal from your post and start it myself.

Trooper arraigned on assault charge

Wednesday, January 17, 2001
By Christine Guilfoy
Telegram & Gazette Staff

FITCHBURG-- An off-duty state police trooper accused of beating a man outside a Lunenburg pub was arraigned in Fitchburg District Court yesterday.

Trooper Scott M. O'Malley, 37, of Sterling was allowed to remain free on personal recognizance, but was ordered to return to court for a pretrial conference Feb. 6.

He was charged with assault and battery, threatening to commit a crime and a civil rights violation with injury. He was suspended without pay when the allegations came to light in November.

Peter C. Cote Sr. of Leominster told Lunenburg police he was beaten by the 12-year state police veteran Nov. 2 as he left the American Graffiti Bar in Lunenburg.

Mr. Cote was treated at the HealthAlliance Leominster Hospital emergency room for his injuries.

Mr. Cote said Trooper O'Malley attacked him as he was getting into his car to leave the bar, about 3:30 p.m. He remembered unlocking his car, but does not remember what happened next, according to court papers.

“I woke up on the ground, and Scott O'Malley was sitting on my back, beating me,” Mr. Cote wrote.

The fight started after the trooper objected to a loud discussion among a handful of people in the bar who were using racial epithets and saying that a disproportionately large number of minorities were on welfare, the trooper's lawyer, Timothy M. Burke, has said.

The trooper objected to the discussion, then went outside, where Mr. Cote started the fight, Mr. Burke said. Mr. Burke is a lawyer for the State Police Association of Massachusetts.

Before his suspension, Trooper O'Malley was assigned to the Leominster barracks. He had already been on restricted duty when the altercation at the American Graffiti happened, but police have refused to say why, saying it is a personnel matter.

Heard on the news last night that a man shot his wife thinking that she was an intruder.

This man's house was invaded two times in the past. I am not sure what time span it was, it may have been the same week.

He heard movement in the house between 2 and 3 A.M. Thinking that it was another intruder, he drew his weapon and went to seek out the noise. He made no noise himself, creeping up on her, he fired two to three shots which struck her.

This situation brings up a lot of questions to me.

Does he sleep in the same room with his wife?
If so why did he not check to see if she was there?
If not why did he NOT USE some sort of verbal command to signal his wife?
Why did she not signal her husband?
Did she hear him?

She MAY HAVE heard him searching. She may have thought that he was an intruder, and did not want the intruder to know she was awake.

People who have guns in their homes for this type of defense need to have verbal signals that they can use to indentify each other.

If you are a gun owner and plan to use your weapon for self defense of your home, Please, have a HOME INVASION PLAN and make sure everyone in your house knows a secret word or phrase that will distinguish you and them from an intruder.

On the plus side, he did not kill her!
The woman remains in the hospital in critical condition. With hope she will survive, and a very hard lesson will be learned by them.

Another tragedy to be blamed on home owners with guns.

------------------
Len Testa

For those who wish to discuss the Verbal Self Defense aspect of this situation, I have reposted this on the VSD forum. To discuss homeownership of guns please continue to post in this thread.

[This message has been edited by LenTesta (edited January 25, 2001).]

Len,

I'll bet he'll never do that again.

I once slept with a .45 Colt under my pillow and have been startled out of a good sleep in the middle of the night a number of times.

3am does funny things to the mind and hair raises on the arms when shadows move and you are still half-asleep. There can be a different suonds made by strangers than those made my someone looking for the asprin bottle. But that is just armchair stuff... Having had his house broken into several times he must have been well-inside the realm of paranoia, and to me, all the training in the world won't do one bit of good if he was in that state except maybe....

If your spouse has a nearby loaded gun and you get up for any reason, turn on ALL the lights on your path to wherever you are going. So what if you wake the other half.

------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera

And be sure to take the gun with you, Al!

------------------
GEM

Testa-sempai,

I gotta tell ya... I just can not figure out why/how these things happen! (Not that I don't understand the course of events, but fercryinoutloud...)

We _both_ have rescue equipment accessable for an emergency situation at night. (No kids) If one of us wakes up and hears a noise, the first thing is to check on the other person. Besides, the perimeter is such that we will be up together if it's an emergency situation... If one of us gets up because of illness or some other reason, we have some non-verbal things we do so that the other person will know what's going on. (leaving certain lights on helps... BTW, sometimes when I'm sleeping restlessly or snoring from having eaten something I'm allergic to, my wife will go sleep in the guest room... still never had a problem like this because it's all in the planning.)

But forget all that.

It is just downright bad gun handling for someone to take a shot without full knowledge of the target!

We were broken into twice where we used to live and never had a problem at night like this... We functioned as a team throughout and ultimately it's that teamwork and planning that will help you survive this type of situation. (Un)Fortunately, we didn't confront an intruder directly...

If someone can't get a clear head (the 0-100% in under a nanosecond) when startled awake in the middle of the night, then they need to take other precautions to buy time. No one should wake up in a fog, grab a gun and start shooting. That's worse than irresponsible, that's criminally negligent.



[This message has been edited by Panther (edited January 25, 2001).]

Here's an interesting tidbit out of Dunn, NC from The Daily Record.

A Dunn man was home with his parents when there was a loud noise at the front door. It was evident that someone was attempting to kick in the door. The man retrieved his lawfully owned pistol and headed to see what was happening (while sending his parents to another room to hide). He turned the corner at the front door and was immediately hit with pellets and metallic shrapnel from the doorknob. The intruders had used a 12 ga. to blast open the door. As they started to rush in, the man returned fire and the two assailants fled. Police stated later that they had apprehended the two assailants who were vacationing sheriff's deputies (from an unnamed jurisdiction), who had donned their agency issued bullet-proof vests prior to the assault. The father and mother of the man who defended his family had no doubt that he had saved all of their lives. No immediate motive was known, but authorities speculated that robbery and murder were imminent.

Maybe this would be a good place to discuss training with firearms, or maybe begin a new thread.

Earlier someone mentioned a Home Invasion Plan, shooting a target without 100% verification OF that target, etc. These are items that involve TRAINING, sometimes of an intensive sort! It seems that training is the major focus of what most of the people here are involved in, and training with a firearm would seem to fall into the category of "martial" arts. Maintaining a firearm without the appropriate training would seem to me like learning a kata without EVER practicing an associated bunkai. You end up just dangerous enough to maybe get the WRONG person hurt...

Just a thought,

D1