Re: Re: genoa protests

On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Kendall Clark wrote:

> >>>>> "jane" == jane craig <[email protected]> writes:
> 
>   jane> hey, rocket scientist, that dead protester was about to throw
>   jane> a fire extinguisher at that carabinieri jeep (not a
>   jane> particularly "heavy" vehicle).  
> 
> Which doesn't justify shooting him. *Twice*. *In the head*. 

I've heard that one of the head injuries was from a stone.

Still, head shot still seems unwarrented (live *ammo* seems
unwarrented).

But, reports seem to be leading that it was a relatively untrained
officer, perhaps panicing.

> From the photos I've looked at, it seems unlikely that the fire
> extinguisher would have done much harm, since the cop was well
> sheltered inside the jeep.

Yes, I agree. And, *from what I can tell*, fending off the (to be
thrown) fire extinguisher seems to have been possible and reasonable.

The big issue, IMHO, for me, at the moment, is why live ammo was issued
and not strongly discouraged.

> 	somehow, your portrayal failed
>   jane> to mention that fact.

Not "somehow", I'm pretty sure Kendall didn't *know* at the time. Be that
as it may, a correction or follow up seems reasonable.

>  so, he was actually armed with
>   jane> something considerably more threatening than a roll of tape.
> 
> Even if so, that still leaves open the question whether the shooting
> was justified.

Yes.

>   jane> in fact, he wielded that extinguisher over his head, again, at
>   jane> police officers.

Note, the reports say he was trying to throw it into the car. That's
pretty different than, say, using it as a bludgeon.

>  fortunately, the officer was quicker than
>   jane> the thug.  

Now *that's* uncalled for. Officers are *supposed* to do better than gun
down folks, even those who threaten them. 

[snip]
> 	reading
>   jane> your account of the justified shooting 

It's not *at all* clear that it's justified. Indeed, everything is leading
toward it being *un*justified, i.e., at *least* manslaughter.

> of that dope kind of
>   jane> stirs visions of some of history's best/worst propagandists.
> 
> You can't know that the murder was justified since you don't know what
> led up to it. Do you know, contrary to reports, that the jeep hadn't
> been trying to run over protesters at high speed?
>
>   jane> more than likely heroes of yours...stalin, mao, pol pot,
>   jane> castro, ortega, ho chi minh, et al.

Er..if that's not vile propoganda, what is? I mean, "More than likely
heros of *yours*, Hilter, Mussolini, Contras, Bady Doc, Pinochet..."

C'mon.

[snip]
>   jane> i hope that one day, kendall, you attack a jeep full of police
>   jane> officers with a fire extinguisher.

Why would you *hope* that? That's deranged. You hope that Kendall goes
violent? 

>  that is all that
>   jane> professional, leftist thugery is really all about.  
> 
> *Professional* thuggery? What, pray tell, is that?

Indeed.

[snip]

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.