Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu misc.legal:60742 alt.politics.usa.constitution:2012 alt.society.civil-liberty:9090 talk.politics.guns:54261
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!emory!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!destroyer!vela.acs.oakland.edu!vela.acs.oakland.edu!awesley
From: awesley@vela.acs.oakland.edu (awesley)
Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: That silly outdated Bill (was Re: Koresh and Miranda)
Date: 15 Apr 1993 20:39:55 -0400
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A.
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <awesley.734920536@vela.acs.oakland.edu>
References: <scottj-130493142229@iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu> <1qfupo$ra2@vela.acs.oakland.edu> <scottj-140493115536@bircf08.birc.georgetown.edu> <1qi9va$arg@vela.acs.oakland.edu> <scottj-150493092731@iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vela.acs.oakland.edu

scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott) writes:


: The issue has never been whether tanks were used in Detroit in 1967.  It
: has been whether they fired their main guns.  

Never?  This is incorrect.  Either you don't read very well or resort
to falsehoods in an attempt to make a point.

At the risk of boring and belaboring the point, my claim was
the chain was regarding the tanks "last used in Detroit in 48".
The text follows.

:  You did not merely claim that
: tanks were used--you claimed that they fired their main guns to suppress
: sniper fire and that they were "quite" effective at this.  

Indeed, when Coffman claimed they were only used as APCs, I did say
I had been told they did fire their main guns.  
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: You continue to
: back away from this claim and defend something else that nobody is
: disputing.

Well, the poster who I responded to did dispute the use of tanks
post-48.  Rude of you to call Gary Coffman a nobody.  

: "Well, it's not the main gun."  Gee, that's only the entire point.  Are you
: now going to admit that you were wrong?

That was the entire point to *you*.  What exactly did I claim?
   --------------------------------------------------
  "I've heard eye-witness descriptions of tanks using their main guns
to respond to sniper fire.  Quite effectively."
   --------------------------------------------------

  I wasn't wrong . . . I've heard those descriptions.  If you're
paying attention, I've mentioned that I saw the tanks with my own
eyes, but the main gun firing was an account I heard.  That helps
people judge whether or not to kick in the, to use your words,
"bullshit filters".  Stating that I *claimed* this is a falsehood.

  What was it I claimed as fact?  Here's the entire post:
  --------------------------------------------------
>We haven't used tanks against the black ghettos since Detroit 1948. 

Correction.  I know they used tanks in Detroit 1968.  I saw em, it
was well covered in the news at that time.  Gordon Lightfoot mentions
it in his song "Black Day in July".
  --------------------------------------------------

  Since you don't dispute that and claim that nobody else does, that
means I was right.  

: I will never read of tanks firing their main guns in Detroit in the '67
: riots.  There is simply no way that such an event could have taken place
: without it being common knowledge even 26 years later.  The American
: military firing shells from tanks in American cities on blacks would have
: been *big* news.

   So one would suppose.  Some folks think in happened in 48.  

Awesley goes on:
  You can also read of the troops using grenade launchers.

: To fire fragmentary grenades?  I doubt that as well.  To fire concussion
: grenades?  Perhaps.  To fire tear gas?  Certainly.  But you would be
: perfectly willing to let us believe they fired frags, wouldn't you, since
: it makes your other claim seem more plausible.

John, again, strawman techniques.  Do you feel you're losing it so you
have to stretch what I said and knock that down?  What I read said
nothing about what they fired.  And so I put nothing in there.  If you
need some help, let me know and I'l take your side of this for a
while.  You're not scoring here, you're boring here. 

: If tanks had fired their main guns in Detroit, people would have been
: screaming about it for the past two and half decades.  I would know about
: it. 

   Glad to know you're such an expert.  Nice to hear some an
authority.  I especially appreciate your basis of knowledge -- if it
had happened, you would have know it.  Since you are such an
authority, you probably know that people did scream about an alleged
massive cover-up in the number of people killed in the Detroit riot.
Some claimed 100+ dead, others said 300.  The offical number is 43 but
the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia says it was "several".  I've also
heard some things about that but I won't dare repeat them.  You'd
assert that I claimed they were truth.

: Unless you also claim that the National Guard managed to cover it up. 

   Taking the tour after the riots, it was pretty easy to tell the 
difference between Army and Guard troops.  Or so I recall from 26 
years ago.  And I seem to recall it was the Army running the tanks.
So it would have been an Army cover-up.

   Another part of my memories was that while most damaged building
were burnt, some were in rubble.  Based on what I remember, I was and
am inclined to believe an old sarge or two.

: If your mind is open enough to believe that, well, good for you.  I prefer
: to live in reality.   And here in reality, I find it hard to believe that
: those tanks even had any shells, much less fired them.

   Given the level in destruction in Detroit, I'm quite willing to believe
that they did fire their guns.

   Now then, we've bored the shit out of anyone whose bothered to read
this far and all you've managed to say is that you don't believe the
account I cited.

: --John L. Scott

                                  -- wes
