Sender: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 12 May 2000 14:48:15 +1200 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi TK
b
> > Hell no... it's way old. Anyway, my only question would be why
> those who are
> > murdered by the State should be particularly differentiated from those
> > murdered by others? It's all murder to me.
TK
> Just to clarify: does a cop have a right to kill someone imminently
> threatening to kill a third party? That is, is this murder too?
A cop? Does a Citizen have a right to kill a cop who is threatening to kill
a third party - a Diallo, for instance? We had one here last week - 4 cops
vs. a young guy who was drunk and had been breaking windows with a softball
bat. One of the cops pumped five rounds into him at point-blank range. Cops
in NZ don't carry side-arms - they had to go to their car to get the Glock
from the trunk. What would I have done in this situation? - taken the bat
off the kid... given him a bed to sober up in... taken him to the shop
owners to negotiate a clean-up and reparations. Nah - shoot the vermin.
This is as far as I can go -
From Camus' 'The Rebel':
'...Nodier summed up, without knowing it perhaps, the position obstinately
defended by Sade: 'To kill a man in a paroxysm of passion is understandable.
To have him killed by someone else after serious meditation and on the
pretext of a duty honourably discharged is incomprehensible.'
Regards
b
bruce sandford
Hamilton 2001
Aotearoa - New Zealand
ICQ: 20816964
|
|
|