HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What "due process&qu...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:15 AM

What "due process" does not mean:

1). The right to kill cops who ask you to surrender;
2). The right to shoot at cops who ask you to surrender without them using deadly force against you
3). The right to be presumed harmless to the public while killing people until after a jury trial

Anyone who says that Chris Dorner was deprived of due process because cops stopped letting themselves get shot while trying to arrest him is substituting political sympathy for his anti-LAPD manifesto for actual constitutional analysis.

Shooting at cops will get you killed, and there's no constitutional right to the contrary.

239 replies, 24734 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 239 replies Author Time Post
Reply What "due process" does not mean: (Original post)
geek tragedy Feb 2013 OP
nobodyspecial Feb 2013 #1
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #2
Electric Monk Feb 2013 #19
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #47
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #50
EOTE Feb 2013 #52
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #65
EOTE Feb 2013 #67
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #68
EOTE Feb 2013 #70
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #72
EOTE Feb 2013 #74
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #76
EOTE Feb 2013 #80
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #83
EOTE Feb 2013 #87
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #89
EOTE Feb 2013 #97
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #98
EOTE Feb 2013 #100
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #104
EOTE Feb 2013 #107
treestar Feb 2013 #114
EOTE Feb 2013 #115
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #137
EOTE Feb 2013 #141
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #146
EOTE Feb 2013 #151
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #155
EOTE Feb 2013 #160
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #162
EOTE Feb 2013 #167
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #170
EOTE Feb 2013 #176
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #177
EOTE Feb 2013 #178
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #180
EOTE Feb 2013 #183
Light House Feb 2013 #150
EOTE Feb 2013 #152
Light House Feb 2013 #159
EOTE Feb 2013 #163
Light House Feb 2013 #172
EOTE Feb 2013 #175
Light House Feb 2013 #184
EOTE Feb 2013 #186
Light House Feb 2013 #191
MADem Feb 2013 #197
Light House Feb 2013 #199
treestar Feb 2013 #99
EOTE Feb 2013 #110
treestar Feb 2013 #117
EOTE Feb 2013 #118
Light House Feb 2013 #113
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #81
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #85
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #116
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #129
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #140
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #142
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #149
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #153
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #158
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #169
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #179
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #182
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #185
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #188
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #190
unapatriciated Feb 2013 #232
EOTE Feb 2013 #145
Light House Feb 2013 #154
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #157
Light House Feb 2013 #90
dkf Feb 2013 #92
EOTE Feb 2013 #96
dkf Feb 2013 #102
EOTE Feb 2013 #105
dkf Feb 2013 #111
EOTE Feb 2013 #112
dkf Feb 2013 #128
EOTE Feb 2013 #135
treestar Feb 2013 #106
EOTE Feb 2013 #108
MADem Feb 2013 #84
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2013 #208
MADem Feb 2013 #217
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2013 #225
MADem Feb 2013 #228
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2013 #229
MADem Feb 2013 #230
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2013 #233
MADem Feb 2013 #234
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2013 #235
MADem Feb 2013 #236
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2013 #237
MADem Feb 2013 #238
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2013 #239
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2013 #3
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #5
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2013 #24
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #27
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2013 #43
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2013 #206
Light House Feb 2013 #46
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2013 #207
treestar Feb 2013 #109
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #4
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #6
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #8
bigapple1963 Feb 2013 #9
EOTE Feb 2013 #53
theKed Feb 2013 #122
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2013 #211
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #11
EOTE Feb 2013 #55
Coyote_Tan Feb 2013 #21
EOTE Feb 2013 #56
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2013 #213
cali Feb 2013 #20
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2013 #209
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #215
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2013 #224
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #227
Light House Feb 2013 #223
Light House Feb 2013 #7
LisaL Feb 2013 #10
Light House Feb 2013 #12
LisaL Feb 2013 #13
Light House Feb 2013 #14
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #73
Light House Feb 2013 #77
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #193
klyon Feb 2013 #192
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2013 #25
Light House Feb 2013 #45
EOTE Feb 2013 #57
Light House Feb 2013 #60
EOTE Feb 2013 #63
Light House Feb 2013 #69
EOTE Feb 2013 #71
Light House Feb 2013 #75
EOTE Feb 2013 #79
Light House Feb 2013 #88
EOTE Feb 2013 #94
Light House Feb 2013 #101
EOTE Feb 2013 #103
Light House Feb 2013 #120
EOTE Feb 2013 #121
Light House Feb 2013 #126
EOTE Feb 2013 #139
Light House Feb 2013 #166
EOTE Feb 2013 #168
thucythucy Feb 2013 #194
EOTE Feb 2013 #195
thucythucy Feb 2013 #201
EOTE Feb 2013 #204
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2013 #210
cliffordu Feb 2013 #37
EOTE Feb 2013 #58
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2013 #214
treestar Feb 2013 #95
Jeff In Milwaukee Feb 2013 #144
thucythucy Feb 2013 #196
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #203
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #205
jberryhill Feb 2013 #15
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #16
Zoeisright Feb 2013 #28
longship Feb 2013 #17
cali Feb 2013 #18
Confusious Feb 2013 #35
Fumesucker Feb 2013 #22
cliffordu Feb 2013 #38
Fumesucker Feb 2013 #44
jberryhill Feb 2013 #202
Bonobo Feb 2013 #23
VanillaRhapsody Feb 2013 #26
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #29
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #31
Bonobo Feb 2013 #34
cliffordu Feb 2013 #39
Hissyspit Feb 2013 #30
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #32
pkdu Feb 2013 #33
TorchTheWitch Feb 2013 #36
cliffordu Feb 2013 #40
jberryhill Feb 2013 #54
zappaman Feb 2013 #187
pkdu Feb 2013 #222
TorchTheWitch Feb 2013 #226
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #41
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #42
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #127
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #132
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #164
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #173
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #198
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #200
Light House Feb 2013 #48
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #124
Light House Feb 2013 #130
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #148
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #49
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #51
theKed Feb 2013 #131
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #133
theKed Feb 2013 #134
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #138
theKed Feb 2013 #171
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #174
Light House Feb 2013 #136
Enrique Feb 2013 #59
Progressive dog Feb 2013 #61
MADem Feb 2013 #62
Light House Feb 2013 #64
MADem Feb 2013 #123
Light House Feb 2013 #143
MADem Feb 2013 #165
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #66
MADem Feb 2013 #125
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #82
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #86
MADem Feb 2013 #119
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #78
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #93
The Straight Story Feb 2013 #156
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #161
Light House Feb 2013 #181
treestar Feb 2013 #91
Coyotl Feb 2013 #147
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #189
quakerboy Feb 2013 #212
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #216
WillyT Feb 2013 #218
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #219
WillyT Feb 2013 #220
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #221
quaker bill Feb 2013 #231

Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:18 AM

1. Yeah, a voice of sanity.

Thanks for summarizing it so succinctly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nobodyspecial (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:21 AM

2. A large portion of DU thinks that it's never okay for cops to kill someone.

I guess they must think cops can set their phasers to stun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 04:05 AM

19. Really? I'm sure you can back that claim up, right? Please proceed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:28 AM

47. Can you offer even ONE link saying that, much less enough to prove a 'large portion'?

I'd love to see those many posts you claim to have seen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #47)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:21 AM

50. You missed all the hysterical claims that this was a lynching, murder, vigilantism,

execution, etc.

The implied premise behind all of those claims is that the police weren't allowed to use deadly force against him in this situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #50)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:29 AM

52. So you've got nothing?

You said that there are DUers who believe it's NEVER ok for a police officer to kill someone. Surely you'd be able to provide at least one link to such a DUer if you weren't talking out of your ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #52)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:06 AM

65. If it's not okay for the police to use potentially lethal force against

someone like Dorner in that situation, it's never okay for them to use force.

Of course, it was perfectly legal for the police to use potentially legal force against Dorner there. It was not a violation of his due process rights.

So, why all the complaining from DU over a perfectly legal and constitutional set of actions by the police as they dealt with Dorner in that cabin?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #65)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:09 AM

67. So again, you've got utterly nothing.

Just more asinine comments. You said that there are DUers who say that it's NEVER ok for a police office to kill someone, but you've only provided your OWN idiotic comments to back up your other idiotic comment. How about providing something that another DU said? As I'm sure you're not an attention seeking liar, you'll provide that information right away. Oh, and I'm sure you'll be able to provide me the portion of the constitution or police law that says that police are allowed to burn suspects to death when there are other options available. You totally seem like someone who doesn't speak out of his or her ass, so I'm sure you'd be able to provide that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #67)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:14 AM

68. Police are allowed to use tear gas.

Moreover, Dorner did not burn to death. He shot himself inside the cabin. (there was a single gun shot in the cabin shortly after the tear gas was deployed)

He was not handcuffed to a wall in there. He was free to walk out at any time.

True, they would not have been allowed to tie him to a post and then pour gasoline on him and then set him on fire.

But that is not what happened.

They shot incendiary tear gas cannisters in, and after they did so he shot himself.

Boo fucking hoo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #68)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:28 AM

70. They had standard tear gas available.

And it's quite clear by their comments that they intended the cabin to go up in flames, if they didn't, then they are far too idiotic and negligent to be in law enforcement. We also have no idea whether Dorner killed himself or not, the fact that you think it even matters shows how much you miss the point.

Also, once again you've provided absolutely nothing to bolster your idiotic claim. I think I know where the confusion comes in, I think that words mean things and you disagree. Funny, I thought geeks like words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #70)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:35 AM

72. They used standard tear gas, and it didn't work

Hoping to end the standoff, law enforcement authorities first lobbed “traditional” tear gas into the cabin. When that did not work, they opted to use CS gas canisters, which are known in law enforcement parlance as incendiary tear gas. These canisters have significantly more chance of starting a fire. This gas can cause humans to have burning eyes and start to feel as if they are being starved for oxygen. It is often used to drive barricaded individuals out.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/dorner-manhunt-highly-incendiary-hot-gas-used-on-cabin.html


Thus dies another DU conspiracy theory.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #72)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:37 AM

74. And HOW did they know it didn't work?

There was no gunfire after the standard tear gas canisters were lobbed. They also had the perimeter fully surrounded. Other than the man hours expended, what would have been the harm in waiting? At the very least, it could have proven that Dorner died by his own hand. What the fuck is the conspiracy theory?

On edit: Oh, and you've managed to derail the conversation once again. Got a shred of evidence for your idiotic claim that there are DUers who NEVER feel it's appropriate for a police officer to kill? I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence for that jackass comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #74)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:41 AM

76. Are you seriously asking how they didn't know that the standard tear gas didn't

work?

Hint: what is the purpose of using tear gas against barricaded individuals?

When you're ready to think, please reply. And not until then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #76)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:49 AM

80. It's to get the suspect out of hiding.

And, HINT (because you don't seem to be very good at this game): That was ALSO the purpose of the incendiary tear gas, yet he still didn't come out. You really need to work on this thinking thing, it's one of your very weak spots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #80)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:56 AM

83. So, he didn't emerge after the standard tear gas.

Ergo, it didn't work

After they used the harsher gas, there was a single gunshot from inside the building.

Hmmmmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #83)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:00 PM

87. Again, they were not in danger at the time.

At that point, they had a perimeter established and things were about in as favor of the PD as is possible. They had no idea whether or not the tear gas worked at the time, he could have been dead and they'd have known it would have been by their hand. Now we have to assume it was by their hand. You have no idea what due process is, otherwise you'd know that it was denied in order to save some man hours, NOT in order to save any lives.


Also, this is one HUGE distraction from your utterly idiotic assertion that there are DUers that believe it's NEVER ok for the police to kill. That's one massive, idiotic lie and you haven't even attempted to defend that despicable, disgusting comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #87)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:05 PM

89. Due process does not require them to sit there forever waiting for the guy.

Yes, they COULD have waited longer. But they were under no legal obligation to do so.



Police ROUTINELY use tear gas to force out people in Dorner's position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #89)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:12 PM

97. Forever, 2 days, what's the difference?

Apparently nothing to folks like you. And yes, they use STANDARD tear gas. If they're honestly claiming that they didn't expect INCENDIARY tear gas containers, several of them, to set that building on fire, then they all need to be removed from their jobs from sheer incompetence if nothing else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #97)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:14 PM

98. Legally, no difference between 2 days and 2 hours.

If they give him a chance to surrender and he doesn't, they can move in whenever they determine it's in the best interest of public safety.

You may not like their decision, but your opinion is constitutionally and legally irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #98)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:17 PM

100. The PD can not decide to kill based upon what they unilaterally determine is in the best interest of

safety, at least that would never hold up in a court of law. That would mean that they are beyond any sort of accountability and police would never be held liable for wrongful deaths. You're welcome to provide any evidence to the contrary. Oh, and by the way, by "evidence", I don't mean you repeating the same stupid shit you've been spouting all along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #100)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:20 PM

104. When a suspect is armed, dangerous, has killed, kidnapped, and carjacked and has refused to

surrender they are allowed to use lethal force in order to neutralize the threat he poses.

Unilaterally. they don't need a court order. They don't need to call his lawyer. Their call, and their call alone.

That is the law.

Afterwards, his family could sue I suppose and try to get a court to second-guess. Good luck with that.


You may not like it, but that is the law. Had he run out the cabin in the woods with a gun, they legally could have gunned him down in the back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #104)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:23 PM

107. You know very little of the law.

You keep spouting off stupid shit that you think the law is, but you provide nothing to back it up. Your whole assessment of due process seems to be that it only applies if the person in question is NOT guilty as shit. You seem to have zero understanding that due process is most important for the people who appear most likely to be guilty. Not that I think for a second that Dorner was not guilty, but that has zero impact on how incredibly important due process is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #107)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:28 PM

114. It applies from the beginning

Which is the arrest. You're the one without knowledge. You seem to think people who shoot at cops have the right to be arrested peacefully after as long a wait as they choose. Not only due process, but reality is offended

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #114)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:29 PM

115. You are terribly confused.

People who are SHOOTING at cops do not have that right. People who have SHOT cops definitely do. Comprende?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #107)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:13 PM

137. If a person is a THREAT they get treated like a threat.

Due process is only marginally related to that.

Whether someone is an active threat and whether they are guilty are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.

They do not need a court order to use lethal force against someone they determine is a threat to the general public.

That you do not understand that is your own deficiency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #137)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:17 PM

141. A man holed up in a cabin surrounded by a small army is not a threat.

Especially once the walls are torn down and utilities have been shut off. You seem to be suggesting that cops can decide unilaterally what they perceive to be a threat and administer deadly justice. That's not the way our legal system works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #141)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:20 PM

146. Actually, yes cops do get to unilaterally determine who is a threat

and how to stop them.

If they do it illegally, they can be prosecuted. But the call is theirs to make.

Also, the idea that a guy with a .50 caliber rifle capable of knocking our ARMED PERSONNEL CARRIERS metal from HUNDREDS of yards away wasn't a threat to anyone is astonishingly stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #146)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:25 PM

151. There's that accountability thing.

Something that many DUers including yourself seem to be reluctant for the PDs to face. That's the whole point of this discussion, to determine whether or not police were justified in what they did. Quite a few DUers, including yourself, seem utterly certain that the police did no wrong, or at least should face no repurcussions for what they did. Luckily for you, most of the ill-informed public is on your side as well.

Also, there is little reason to believe that the .50 cal was either with Dorner or used by him in the cabin considering they brought in demolition vehicles which were NOT attacked by Dorner. Another reason why their execution was completely wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #151)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:31 PM

155. Sure, if they behaved illegally they can face sanction.

But, given this guy was armed with a weapon capable of taking out armed personnel carriers that were three football fields away, good luck convincing anyone but yourself he was harmless.

You seem to be complaining that the police acted without legal authority. That is legally false. They have full legal authority to deal with such situations.

For whatever reason, you seem stuck on the idea that the police were not authorized to use lethal force against a guy who posed an extreme risk.

You are not rational on this issue. Most people are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #155)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:35 PM

160. You and others are determined to see that they DON'T face sanction.

In that you are justifying their actions no matter how foul. And again, if they were truly under attack and fearing of their lives while Dorner was holed up, they would have burned him much sooner. And if he truly had access to any anti-APC weaponry, don't you think that maybe, um, he might have used it? The only information suggesting he had such weapons came from the manifesto. And most people are rational? What country do you live in, certainly must not be the U.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #160)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:37 PM

162. So says an armchair tactician from behind his keyboard.

The next time you're within 100 yards of a trained, well-armed sniper who's cornered, be sure to tell us how safe you feel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #162)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:40 PM

167. I'd much rather have an armchair tactician defending due process and rights...

than an armchair right wing authoritarian shredding those rights. And apparently those people were all pretty damned safe considering that once he was barricaded in, not a single LEO received so much as a scratch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #167)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:42 PM

170. I believe the right to barricade yourself in someone else's

home and shoot at cops without being treated as a threat to the public should be shredded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #170)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:47 PM

176. Along with every other right we provide suspects. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #176)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:50 PM

177. No. Just that one.

That's the only 'right' of his that was violated.

He was not denied the opportunity to surrender. He lost an armed fight with police, as is almost always the case with people who choose to engage in such conduct and refuse to surrender.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #177)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:53 PM

178. So you think that police have the right to murder anyone that doesn't surrender to them. Got it.

He did not lose an armed fight with police, it's rather likely he was burned to death. You get it less and less each time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #178)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:56 PM

180. Not a single thing you wrote is honest or accurate.

Police do not have the right to murder anyone, since the definition of murder is an unlawful killing.

Police do have a right to use lethal force to subdue a dangerous person who refuses to surrender where relying upon non-lethal force would unreasonably endanger either them or the general public.

The CS tear gas was not even lethal force. It did not kill him.

It is highly doubtful that the fire resulting from the CS gas killed him, given that a single gunshot was fired from inside the building after it was deployed, strongly suggesting a suicide.

I am going to stop responding to you, as you have literally nothing intelligent or accurate to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #180)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:59 PM

183. So if the police kill someone, it's not murder. Got it.

Everything you say suggests that so long as the police do it, it's alright. Nixon would have loved you.

And a match isn't lethal force either, that doesn't prevent arsonists from being charged. I haven't seen a single argument from you that I'd consider cogent.

And way to abuse the word "literally", something half-wits do all the time. Somehow I managed to start work as a network administrator at age 16 with nothing intelligent or accurate to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #141)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:25 PM

150. Now I know you have no idea of what you're talking about.

 

Just because he's barricaded in a cabin doesn't make him any less of a threat to police or the general public. That's not how it works, the threat ends when the subject is neutralized, until then, they are still considered a deadly threat to society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #150)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:26 PM

152. You clearly have no idea of what YOU are talking about.

See how easy that is to do?

By your logic, the police are justified in setting fire to ANY building holding a suspected killer regardless of whether he's a current threat or not. It simply doesn't work that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #152)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:34 PM

159. No, they are not justified to SET FIRE to any building a suspect

 

is barricaded in, but they are justified in using reasonable force in dislodging said suspect with the tools that are legal for them to use.
And I do know what I'm talking about, but you very clearly do not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #159)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:37 PM

163. You act as if you're the ultimate authority on this matter.

Rather than just some internet rando. Let me clue you into something: Saying "no I'm not, you are." is not even approaching a rational argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #163)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:43 PM

172. And you're acting and proving that you haven't clue one

 

of what you're talking about.
I dare say that my experience in this field is much more extensive than yours, in other words, I've walked the walk and talked the talk.
Take that anyway you desire because I grow bored of arguing with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #172)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:47 PM

175. I dare say that I've been in far more deadly sniper standoffs than you have.

And I dare say that you're even worse at playing internet tough guy than you are at providing logical arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #175)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:06 PM

184. Oh I'm sure you have.

 

I have no more inclination to believe you anymore than you have any inclination to believe me.
And no it seems as if this is starting to descend into insults and rancor, I'm going to stop here and wish you a good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #184)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:07 PM

186. Now you seem to get how the internet works. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #186)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:22 PM

191. Hell, for all any of us know,

 

we're just animals typing on a keyboard.
Here's a pic of me.



Kinda cute, aren't I?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #191)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:54 PM

197. I love animals at keyboards!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #197)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:56 PM

199. That's just too precious. eom.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #74)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:16 PM

99. What would have been the harm in waiting?

I don't suppose the experts in this sort of standoff get to weigh in? It's easy for us to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #99)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:25 PM

110. You're welcome to provide your expert opinion.

Or you're welcome to continue defending the indefensible. I notice that the ones defending this action are typically the ones to say "Well, I'm sure they had their reasons for doing what they did, I'll just assume this is on the up and up."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #110)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:30 PM

117. We could always assume they are in the wrong

And show no interest in their side of it.

Why don't you look for expert opinions on just how long these standoffs should go on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #117)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:32 PM

118. The PDs have certainly provided tons of reasons for us to believe them.

Like pumping 90 bullets into a car carrying 2 elderly women. Or doing it another time for a white surfer dude. These stand off quite often go several days, this one didn't last several hours. He had no utilities, no walls, no ANYTHING. He would not have lasted long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #99)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:27 PM

113. I'll weigh in.

 

The harm in waiting is that this was an extremely dangerous suspect who was cornered, who was out of options, who had police and military training, had made it crystal clear that he wasn't going to be taken alive and would kill as many cops as he could before he went down.
With nighttime approaching, there would have been a real concern of this dangerous fugitive would be able to slip through their perimeter and continue his killing spree.

It has been my experience that this type of dangerous situation needs to be resolved as quick as possible to avoid anymore injuries and death to law enforcement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #72)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:50 AM

81. Regular tear gas causes burning eyes,

you feel that you'll go blind and you can't breathe because it burns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #81)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:57 AM

85. CS gas is more powerful in terms of its effect on the target. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #85)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:29 PM

116. Yes, I understand that...

however, if you've ever experienced regular tear gas within an enclosed structure, (and I have) it seems to me a second round would have been a better choice than the CS.

I am not a Dorner defender. Nor am I heavily invested in Due Process, mainly because DP seems to mean whatever the authority in charge wants it to. I do question the morality of a government executing it own citizens without doing all possible to find an alternative.
The outcome may have been the same, a dead Dorner, but I worry about a society that simply accepts that government agents have a license to kill. I particularly dislike that the police seem to value their own above all others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #116)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:01 PM

129. the other alternatives may not have been better

they can't value Dorner's life above others in the general public.

My own intuition is that Dorner knew how to fashion a home remedy/protection for the standard tear gas, or knew how to resist it given his years of training.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #129)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:15 PM

140. Dorner, trapped in a cabin

was no longer a threat to anyone but himself. Like every other animal on the planet, Dorner needed food and water...they could have waited. He may have taken a bit longer to shoot himself., but so what? I just don't get the rush. Nor do I understand the willingness of people to simply accept that police departments are always justified in killing as a first and only option.

As it is, any evidence that Dorner may have had to support his claim against the LAPD went up in smoke. Again, that is NOT to justify his behavior in any way, what he did was despicable. But even Saddam Hussein got a trial, as have thousands of other equally despicable criminals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #140)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:18 PM

142. I dare say had you been a cop within range of his

.50 caliber rifle (capable of piercing body armor and car engine blocks) you would not consider him to be harmless and not a threat to anyone but himself.

Saddam Hussein surrendered. Dorner did not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #142)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:24 PM

149. geek tragedy....

all rifles have a range...with today's technology there was no reason for anyone to within range of Dorner's rifle.

You missed the point, the intent of the police was to make sure Dorner didn't surrender. How else do you explain 65 bullet holes in a truck delivering newspapers? There was never any intention of taking him alive...Dorner knew that would be the reaction if he killed a police officer or one of their family members. Had he killed an ordinary citizen, the story might have had a different outcome. So suicide by cop was always Dorner's goal...the police just made sure there would be no incriminating evidence found with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #149)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:28 PM

153. .50 caliber rifles have an accurate range of one kilometer or more

Imagine a map of a cabin with no one within 1000 meters of it. Now try to imagine securing that cabin to prevent the person from escaping.

In the forest, in the winter, at night.

Do you have any idea how many people would be needed to secure a perimter whose circumference is over two miles long?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #153)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:33 PM

158. Ah, so it's an issue of money?

Would you please think about that for a minute?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #158)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:41 PM

169. Let me get this straight:

you think that it was a violation of his consitutional rights for police to move in to neutralize the threat he posed to them, where the only other way to neutralize the threat he posed would be to maintain day and night a security perimeter with a circumference of 2 miles.

To do so would require every active duty police officer within hundreds of miles, plus mobilizing the national guard. And then, no one could get close enough to negotiate with him. So how could he surrender.

Come on. Your argument is so patently absurd it borders on silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #169)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:54 PM

179. Yours is so patently immoral

it borders on criminal.

Let me say, for the umpteenth time, I don't give a rat's ass for his 'constitutional' rights. The US constitution is NOT a moral document. In fact what sets it apart from every other constitution ever written, anywhere at any time, is its protection of property rights. It took amendments to give some semblance of morality to the document.

Are you saying there is no technology that could have aided surveillance? Nothing ever designed called motion detectors? No air craft capable of hovering?

What you are saying is that this particular human life was not worth an expenditure greater than whatever it would take to kill him.

Immoral.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #179)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:57 PM

182. Morally, his life did not outweigh the risks from letting this

drag on, including the risk he posed to the police there plus the risk he could escape and kill others.

The means required to avoid direct action against this individual were so extreme as to be physically impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #182)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:06 PM

185. You keep insisting the police were in grave danger....

Yet a protracted gun battle was not taking place. They were able to get close enough to tear down the walls of the cabin. Are you saying we haven't developed better techniques since Ruby Ridge or Waco?

C'mon, use your head. You are buying into a dangerous authoritarian meme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #185)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:10 PM

188. So, using tear gas was more extreme than bulldozing the place

on top of him?

What the police did in this case is standard operating procedure across the country, and has been since the country's founding.

The guy would not cease to be a threat until he was subdued. Just because he was not shooting at the time did not mean he wouldn't open fire at some other time.

They were not required to wait for him to open fire.

Your moral code is much more pacifist than mine is. C'est la vie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #188)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:18 PM

190. We had neither tear gas

nor bulldozers at the nation's founding.

Perhaps that's my real issue with this...."they were not required to wait for him to open fire"

I have little problem with officers shooting when it quite apparent they need to do so. I have no problem with people using a weapon in defense of their own lives...I do have a problem with shooting people for no better reason than they present a threat to your property.

I am not so much a pacifist as I am anti-authoritarian.

I've enjoyed the exchange...it's what makes the Democratic party what it is...a big tent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #149)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 07:24 AM

232. bingo

If you want to make sure there is little or no evidence fire is the way to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #140)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:19 PM

145. Thanks for injecting some rationality into this discussion.

The bloodthirsty behavior of quite a few DUers is very disturbing to me. So many here seem to think that due process only applies if the public isn't rather convinced of the suspect's guilt. So many seem to not understand that if due process isn't used when it's inconvenient that it doesn't mean a damned thing to begin with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #145)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:31 PM

154. Due process applies only when the suspect

 

wants to avail themselves of their right to that due process, it's not incumbent upon LE to put themselves in deadly danger to ensure due process to someone who has already declared that they will kill any LEO who tries to ensure that right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #145)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:32 PM

157. I'm as skeptical of Due Process

as I am of the LAPD and the other police agencies involved. It's the lack of morality that bothers me most. Due Process has evolved into 'whatever the authority in charge wants it to be' Whether it is the DOJ and torture and drones, the congress on trials for terrorists etc.
No government, nor its agencies, should be given a blanket license to kill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #81)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:07 PM

90. Standard tear gas is nothing compared to CS gas.

 

CS gas gets it's slang term burner from the effects it has on the human body, it causes a sever burning sensation of the mucous membrane, the eyes and the nose and also, any open wounds.
It is a very unpleasant experience and will usually cause the average barricaded suspect to surrender.
Dorner was quite obviously not your average barricaded suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #52)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:07 PM

92. Doesn't getting due process pretty much equal not being able to kill regardless of the threat?

 

If so you've got a post below that points you out as such a DUer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #92)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:11 PM

96. No, that's not what due process means.

It means that they're not allowed to kill unless their life or the life of others is in immediate danger. That was definitely NOT the case when they lobbed those incendiary tear gas canisters in the cabin. If you really have that little clue as to what due process means, you should really educate yourself before making such a foolish comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #96)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:19 PM

102. Due process requires being alive I assume.

 

Is it possible that someone who is killed in a police actuon received due process?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #102)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:21 PM

105. No, that's not the case.

If you are killed while actively threatening another's life, you are NOT denied due process. That is NOT what happened here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #105)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:25 PM

111. So you are saying Dorner was not actively threatening anyone's life?

 

Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #111)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:27 PM

112. Whose life or lives was he threatening?

The LEOs who were held in defensive position well away from the cabin? The snipers even further away? Just whose lives were in danger?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #112)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:00 PM

128. And you are so sure no one was in possible reach of any of his weapons?

 

I wonder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #128)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:12 PM

135. If we're not sure, then we must kill.

Is any police officer EVER aware that they're not in range of anyone's weapon, no matter how remote? When it's decided that due process can be denied due to myriad "what if" scenarios, then it might as well not exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #96)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:21 PM

106. The lives of others were in immediate danger

Quit calling other people idiots. It shows you know your argument is weak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #106)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:24 PM

108. How? They were ~1000 yards back, under a great deal of protection.

After the walls were torn down, no one came even close to being injured. No one was in immediate danger and even the PD isn't attempting to make that claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #50)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:57 AM

84. And that's the nub of the issue--not only are the police 'allowed to use deadly force,' they

are EXPECTED to use deadly force when the safety of the public is an issue and lives are being taken.

We don't have a duty to coddle rampaging murderers, here.

That, I think, is what your opponent in this discussion is missing.

And, bottom line, before Dorner's corpse got crisped, he was already dead...by his own hand.

He could have raised that hand, and the other one, and walked out, and surrendered.

He made the decision to commit suicide after a too-long psychotic break that made him do some very stupid things, to include murdering four innocents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #84)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:09 PM

208. How are YOU so sure he wasn't already injured and unable to come out when the place got purposely

torched?

He killed himself because they set the place on fire and he knew what they would do if he dared went outside.....

Especially considering what THEY did to those ladies in the pickup truck and the surfer they shot up! I contend they had no intention of letting him surrender and THAT is why they started the fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #208)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:13 PM

217. You are talking about two different police departments, so stop with the "they" nonsense.

LAPD and San Bernadino Sheriff's Department are two separate entities.

The examination of the body reveals that the guy shot himself in his head. That gunshot was heard before the fire took hold. That's how I know.

He wrote a manifesto saying he intended to go out in a blaze of glory after killing as many people as he could manage--he made a list.

Keep defending the guy, though, if you would like--it is revealing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #217)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:50 PM

225. Not defending that guy......are you defending the ends justifying the means?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #225)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 07:19 PM

228. I am defending the facts, as opposed to the half baked conspiracies. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #228)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:27 AM

229. Half Baked conspiracies? I have the audio archive to PROVE they fired incendiary devices

into that cabin before he shot himself......How is the fact that I HAVE actual audio of the order and admission that 7 incendiary devices NOT intended for indoor usage were shot into that cablin. MEANWHILE a spokesman has claimed that they "don't know how the cabin caught on fire" GMAFB!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #229)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:58 AM

230. Yeah, so what?

Dorner could have dropped a match before he shot himself--you don't know that he didn't. If old Rambo stayed awake during his LAPD training, he had to know what "step two" would be after he didn't clear the building following the application of the weaker form of tear gas.

There was also an APV outside that cabin that had torn down the walls of the thing--all he had to do was walk out with his hands up. The windows were all broken out, too. I'm sure Mister "I Am a Master Predator, I Will Hunt You Down and Kill Your Families" could have figured out, if he was such a Rambo, how to exit out of a broken window or a massive hole in a cabin wall. That's not rocket science. Instead, he put one of HIS bullets in HIS head. He shot seven people, he killed four. I'll save my GMAFB's for those families.

So take your (huff puff) FACTS and dramatic GMAFB's home with you. You weren't there. You know as much as anyone who was watching TV and reading the paper. Stop acting like you have "special insight"--you know nothing more than anyone else does.

I'll listen to Arianna Williams---who was in a relationship with that Dorner guy while he was on the LAPD and who called him violent, twisted, paranoid and dangerous--before I'll believe you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #230)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 12:03 AM

233. and "I" am the one with a "half-baked" idea????

I have evidence(audiotape)....and you have a theory that Dorner MIGHT have dropped a match....and you call mine half-baked. I think it is you that is "fully baked".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #233)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 12:41 AM

234. You don't have "evidence." You have words you are interpreting in a specific way to suit your

agenda. You heard a clip of an audiotape on the internet. You were not there. You know absolutely nothing about what happened there, save what you read and chose to retain. What you don't know, and what you ignore about this issue, could fill volumes.

Never mind that an incendiary tear gas canister is called a 'burner,' and the vernacular of the police is to 'burn 'em out' by using the stronger tear gas.

Doesn't suit your 'evidentiary' scenario, so you ignore it.

Off you go, now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #234)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:28 AM

235. No I have an actual audio recording ......admit it....you never even listened to see what I had!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #235)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:37 AM

236. Everyone listened to what "you" (and by you, I know you mean network TV) "has."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #236)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 06:05 PM

237. So that means YOU DIDN'T listen to the actual police scanner audio tape archived right?

that's what I thought. NO Network TV did NOT broadcast or cover it.....but Randi Rhodes sure did on her show!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #237)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 06:53 PM

238. Guess what?

No one cares.

That's last week's news, and if you want to continue to flog it like it matters, you go right ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #238)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:59 PM

239. then Go away....you began this disagreement.



back at ya!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:24 AM

3. Definition of DUE PROCESS

1: a course of formal proceedings (as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles —called also procedural due process
2: a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual —called also substantive due process
See due process defined for English-language learners »
Examples of DUE PROCESS

Due process requires that evidence not be admitted when it is obtained through illegal methods.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/due%20process

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:29 AM

5. So, they should have flown a judge out there to hold a hearing?

Judicial proceedings are irrelevant to stand offs where an armed suspect refuses to surrender.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:58 PM

24. Oh really....then why are they lying about the fire?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:03 AM

27. It has not been proven they are lying about intending to start the fire.

They obviously did start the fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 07:38 AM

43. Did you reach that conclusion via due process? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #43)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:02 PM

206. Reached it the same way you can....you can hear the orders with your own ears

the police scanners are archived.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:27 AM

46. Lying about what?

 

The after action report isn't even completed yet and you're already claiming that the police are lying.
I've got a feeling that it won't matter what conclusions the investigation comes to, you are still going to think that they're lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #46)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:04 PM

207. the sent "incendiary devices" into that building and then denied that they started the fire

the police scanners verify that order that they sent 7 cannisters inside a building that are never meant to be used indoors. But still they claim they don't know how the fire started.THAT is a lie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:25 PM

109. There are also rules regarding arrest

And probable cause to arrest.

That is the beginning of the process. There is no way to have a trial without arrest and charge.

When a person cannot be arrested, it means the trial can't start

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:24 AM

4. There are a whole lot of cops who handle similar situations

in a professional manner every single day without setting people on fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:32 AM

6. So, it would have been professional to wait for it to get dark and let the

situation get more dangerous.

Even if you are correct, he had no due process right for them to refrain from using tear gas against him. For that matter, a sniper could have capped him and there'd be no legal issue whatsoever.

I guess two dead cops who died because they asked him to surrender weren't enough for the outrage chorus at DU.

Bottom line is that his response when asked to surrender was to kill the person asking. After his last refusal, it's open season on him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 01:02 AM

8. We don't know for a fact that:

"....his response when asked to surrender was to kill the person asking...."

Were you there? Is this what a single LEO witness says? Why, at this point, should we give any credence whatsoever to such an uncorroborated statement.

LEO in SoCal is a nest of lying, racist vipers and those of us who live here know it. 7 LAPD officers, including detectives, all gleefully emptied their guns into a truck with two older women in it without offering THEM an opportunity to surrender, let alone ID themselves. They have ZERO credibility at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 01:07 AM

9. good grief

 

ok. let's say for the sake of argument that no one asked dorner to surrender.

are we now going to argue that dorner didn't know he was supposed to surrender because no one told him to? that he didn't know there would be consequences for shooting the cops outside the cabin? that he didn't know the cops outside the cabin was after him?

i am curious how whether the cops asked him to surrender would have made a difference to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:32 AM

53. No, we ask that due process is followed regardless of whether or not the cops are really angry.

But they proved that they didn't give a flying fuck about due process when they put 90 bullets gangland style into a vehicle carrying two elderly women. Sickening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:50 PM

122. If

And this is a fairly likely "if" - he was never offered a chance to surrender, that is a major break in ... wait for it ... due process. If someone gets arrested the cops can't opt out of reading him his rights because he, say, watches a lot of Law and Order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:16 PM

211. did they bother to ask the old ladies delivering newspapers to surrender? Or the surfer?

does that make you think that they bothered to ask Dorner?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 01:09 AM

11. Why don't you ask the widow and two small children of Jeremiah Mackay?

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/243316/158/Calif-Deputy-Slain-In-Ex-cop-Shootout-Was-Father-Of-2

Perhaps you could tell them what a racist liar he was in addition to questioning whether Dorner was violently resisting arrest when he shot their father and her husband.

Does Jeremiah Mackay's bullet-ridden corpse have ZERO credibility for you as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:33 AM

55. What a pathetic strawman.

Do you dare engage in arguments without using them? Your losing your credibility faster than the LAPD is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 06:53 AM

21. Do you deny that he shot the two cops that day?

 

In what situation is that justified?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:34 AM

56. We don't expect criminals to be justified that's why they're criminals.

We DO definitely expect the police to be justified in their actions, they're SUPPOSED to be better than the criminals. But the LAPD keeps proving over and over that they're no better and in a lot of cases worse than the criminals they protect us from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:18 PM

213. Jeffery Dahmer had heads in his fridge....yet he was asked to surrender....he got due process

even with barrels with human soup and a young naked man running down the street .....see how that works? They didn't bother to aske the old ladies or surfer to surrender..what on earth gives you the idea that they bothered to actually ask Dorner?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 04:06 AM

20. It would hardly have bee unprecedented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:11 PM

209. They "asked him to surrender" like they asked those two old ladies in the pickup to surrender?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #209)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:48 PM

215. If you say so. He's obviously the victim here. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #215)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:48 PM

224. I am not defending him.....but are you defending the ends justify the means?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #224)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:53 PM

227. In the case of subduing an armed, murderous lunatic, yes tear gas was justified.

He had one legal choice: walk out of that cabin and surrender. Before the first tear gas cannisters. Before the second round of tear gas cannisters. Before and after the fire.

He had the chance to surrender for days before that.

There is only one person on this planet to blame for his death, and it is him. There was absolutely nothing illegal or immoral about what the cops did to him in that cabin.

And, please note that it was different human beings who shot those women up than were at that cabin. I know cops are a monolithic other to you and not quite human, but pay attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #209)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:43 PM

223. Your defense of Dorner,

 

a monster who made it very clear that he wasn't going to surrender, even when ordered to several times, is very revealing here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:35 AM

7. There are a whole lot of criminals who surrender

 

without the express intention of killing cops and following through on their promise.

Dorner CHOSE his course of action, Dorner CHOSE not to surrender, Dorner CHOSE to shoot it out with police with the intention of killing as many as he could, Dorner CHOSE his method of demise.
Dorner is responsible for Dorner's death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 01:09 AM

10. Based on his manifesto, I am pretty sure he wanted to go out in a blaze of glory.

And that is how he went.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 01:11 AM

12. You're right.

 

It's my experience that someone who has a death wish will not surrender and will take as many people with them in a very public way as they can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 01:14 AM

13. I think it's very obvious he expected to die and wasn't going to surrender.

He wanted to have his brain examined.
Gave instructions on where to find baseline to have it examined. That is not someone who plans to make it out alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 01:17 AM

14. Agreed. eom.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:36 AM

73. Mass murder is now show biz, and there are fans & wannabes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #73)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:45 AM

77. Yes there is.

 

And it's sad to see society evolving this way, just look at some of the comments on Facebook praising Dorner.
It's sickening to the Nth degree.

What really sickens me are those that claim that the police denied Dorner his due process and purposely burned down the cabin without a shred of evidence that it was burned down out of some form of revenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #77)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:14 PM

193. To some, celebrity of ANY sort is a good and valued thing...

I think some of the more murderous variety comes from the conflict -- even cognitive dissonance -- of two phenomena: The intensifying individuation of social media and its usually anonymous character, and the never-ending demand (and supply) for celebrity which ultimately depends on an old model of communication.

With the flesh & blood, face-to-face "reality" becoming ever-more vacuous, even non-existent, the means to break through and achieve celebrity (a mass-media phenomena which didn't exist before print and modern English, and whose personage didn't exist before Annie Oakley), is increasingly brutal and hideous, though remaining completely banal and uncreative.

Celebrity is as much threatened as any "old" mass media model; yet curiously it is clung to by those completely involved in the "new" individuated social media model.

Nothing like being addicted to a substance that is harder and harder to find.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:39 PM

192. So we just gave him what he wanted? So that makes it ok?

Police had him trapped and surrounded, he was not going to get away.
I see no reason to start a fire. Wait him out, bring in negotiators. Talking him down should be how you begin. We can discuss other tactics if that fails. Fire was a very bad idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:59 PM

25. then why do the cops need to lie about it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:23 AM

45. How do you know they're lying?

 

Were you there? Has the after action investigation been completed? I haven't seen it yet, have you?

The bottom line is that Dorner is responsible for the death of Dorner and I don't really care how this murdering monster ended, the country and the world are a better place without him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #45)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:40 AM

57. Their lips are moving? Or, you can listen to the radio feeds from when the fire was started.

How about this? "We're gonna go forward with the plan, with the burn ... Like we talked about." Or how about this: "Seven burners deployed and we have a fire." Or this? "Fucking burn this motherfucker!" I know all the resident DU authoritarians excuse this as just talk about their plan to use incendiary tear gas containers and they had NO idea that a fire would result. However, I don't suffer idiots gladly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #57)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:53 AM

60. Of course they knew the dangers of these burners.

 

You do know that the term burner is slang for this type of tear gas don't you? The term burner came about because of the intense burning sensation of the gas on the mucous membrane, the eyes and the nose.
The cops had a very dangerous man who had no inclination to surrender, it was getting dark, making the situation more dangerous, Dorner was continually shooting at the cops, they had already tried the cold cannisters with no effect, so the next step was to use the burners to try to flush him out.
You or I don't know yet what started the fire, maybe those cannisters did or maybe Dorner did, we don't know yet.
Unlike you, I'll wait for the after action investigation before I pass judgement.

The bottom line is still that Dorner, and Dorner alone is responsible for the death of Dorner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #60)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:00 AM

63. Uh yes I know that, I made it very clear.

Specifically INCENDIARY tear gas containers, did you not read that? Or are you just confused? I also said that there will be many not so bright DUers who will insist that in spite of the quotes I provided, that the police were not intent on starting a fire, I ask you to read those quotes again, take them in their entirety. If you honestly believe there's a chance in hell that the fire wasn't started by the cops intentionally when they say "We're gonna go forward with the plan, with the burn ... Like we talked about." and "Seven burners deployed and we have a fire.", then you're not letting me down when I said that the authoritarians here would defend the cops. You DO know that they have non-incendiary tear gas as well, right? Probably not. But then again, I'm sure now you know that, you're not going to relent in your authoritarian support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #63)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:27 AM

69. I'm just a little curious,

 

what's your experience in this field? I'm asking an honest question without any rancor.
I do know about the different types of cannisters, I do have experience in the use of these different types of cannisters, I do know the difference between the "cold" cannisters and the "burner" cannister.
And whatever you may think, you're taking those statement way out of context.

"We're going forward with the plan, with the burn" very likely meant that they were going to deploy the burners,
"7 burners deployed and we have a fire" meant that the cannisters were fired into the cabin and maybe those started the fire, maybe Dorner did, neither of us know yet.

It could be that the burners started the fire and certainly the SBCSD knew the dangers, but they also had a very dangerous subject who had already shown no inclination to surrender and was willing to kill as many police as he could, darkness was coming on, making the situation even more dangerous., They had already tried using the "cold" cannisters with no effect, so they went to what they considered their next best option, to introduce into the cabin, a tear gas agent that would cause extreme discomfort and pain in the hopes that Dorner would finally surrender.

It is not my belief that they intentionally ignited the fire, if it was the burners that did start it, although they certainly knew the dangers of that happening.
But the fact still remains, Dorner, and only Dorner is responsible for being denied any due process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #69)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:32 AM

71. My experience in this field means nothing.

I have knowledge about the devices employed and that's what matters. I also did extensive searching and I found NOTHING to indicate that police use the verb "burn" to indicate the deploying of incendiary tear gas. Also, it's utterly idiotic to think that Dorner would have started a fire immediately after the INCENDIARY tear gas entered the cabin. That so many DUers are so pathetic with cause and effect gives me great pause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #71)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:40 AM

75. Why is it idiotic to think that Dorner started the fire after the cannisters were deployed?

 

Isn't that the exact same thing that David Koresh did at Waco when the FBI punched holes in the compound and started to pump tear gas in?
I'm not saying that's what happened, but it is a plausible scenario, just like those burners could have started the fire.
Either scenario is plausible.
Your lack of experience in this field tells me that you are going on emotion rather than fact, and that's to be expected of someone who doesn't have real life experience.
I'm not insulting you, I'm just going by what I've read of your posts here.

Anyways, the fact remains that the only person who denied Dorner due process was Dorner himself.
We'll just have to wait for the after action report and will probably continue to disagree on what did or didn't happen at that cabin that day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #75)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:48 AM

79. Standard tear gas was used at Waco.

And Koresh was a cult leader who wanted to make sure that every one of his followers died with him. The words used by the agents and the subsequent results should make it extremely clear what their intention was.

And it's not up to suspects to deny themselves due process, law enforcement agents are supposed to do everything in their power to provide it, even if the suspect is guilty as shit. That definitely did not happen in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #79)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:02 PM

88. You're correct that standard tear gas was used at Waco,

 

so what? Koresh still lit the place up, killing everyone there.
Standard tear gas was tried on Dorner also and he still refused to surrender, so the next logical step would be to go to the next level and use the burners.
The only one who made their intentions quite clear was Dorner as evidenced by his manifesto and his murderous actions, he had vowed not to be taken alive which creates a very dangerous situation for police, they know that he won't hesitate to shoot and kill them and that he has no qualms about dying.
That type of fugitive is probably the most dangerous when cornered and out of options.

And you are completely wrong about it not being up to the subject to deny themselves due process, they have to want due process to receive it and clearly Dorner was not interested in availing himself to his right to due process.

At this point in time, continuing this debate is pointless as we seem to be talking past each other, you have your opinions, I have mine, however, I have real life experience and you seem to have emotions, and like I said, this isn't an insult, it's just my opinion.

But we can still have our differences without the rancor or insults, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #88)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:09 PM

94. Again, Koresh was a cult leader who wanted his cult to die with him.

The next logical step would have been to wait him out. It would not have been long. Everything in that cabin was shut off, the walls were torn down and the human body cannot survive very long without water. And the whole thing about Dorner making his intentions clear? That's the whole reason we have due process. Don't get me wrong, I have VERY little doubt that Dorner wrote that manifesto or that he killed those people, but we have trials to determine those very things. What if the LAPD set him up? What if they knew they had a mentally unbalanced individual who had damaging information on them and they wanted him taken care of? We CAN'T declare someone guilty before a trial, THAT is what this is all about. I have far more than emotions here and you suggesting that I'm solely thinking with my emotions is more of that rancor and insults you seem to have a problem with. I think due process and the rule of law is of utmost importance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #94)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:17 PM

101. A lot of suppositions here.

 

I too think that due process and rule of law is of utmost importance, but when you have a someone who refuses to avail himself of that due process and rule of law, then what?
You seem to be overlooking the fact that Dorner declared himself guilty, the cops just took him at his word and they had overwhelming evidence that this man had no intention of surrendering and he wanted to die, whether it was suicide by cop or by his own hand.

Anyway, it's been an interesting debate and I thank you for being honest and civil about it with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #101)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:20 PM

103. You don't seem to be valuing due process as much as you claim.

"You seem to be overlooking the fact that Dorner declared himself guilty". How? From his manifesto? And we are to be certain the manifesto actually came from him, how? Again, I have very little doubt that he wrote that, but I want to be sure by use of a trial. Otherwise, what perfect way for police (or anyone else for that matter) to frame innocent people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #103)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:40 PM

120. You keep refusing to recognize the fact that Dorner

 

had no interest of being captured or surrendering to stand trial. He refused to avail himself to his right of due process, to be judged by a jury of 12, to present any evidence that could help his case.

Dorner wasn't in the least bit interested in using his rights, all he wanted to do was kill those and the families of thoese he percieved as having wronged him, whether true or otherwise, and he embarked on his killing spree by killing 2 innocent civilians, killed a Riverside police officer, wounded another Riverside police officer, tried to steal a boat from a Navy base, ran to the San Bernardino mountains, invaded a home and tied up 2 hostages, carjacked a vehicle, shot at 2 Fish & Game Wardens, shot and killed a SBCS deputy and severely wounded another one, and them barricaded himself in a cabin and continued to exchange gunfire with police.

So where did he express any interest of exercising his right to due process and his right to a trial?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #120)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:42 PM

121. That is not a fact, it's a belief.

Facts would have come in during a trial. Surely you understand that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #121)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:57 PM

126. A belief?

 


You're not answering the question. How do you ensure due process when he wasn't in the least bit interested of availing himself of using those rights? He was on a suicide mission and had made it crystal clear that he wasn't going to be taken alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #126)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:15 PM

139. You really don't seem to be understanding this.

The whole point of a trial would be to PROVE that the manifesto was his AND that he had no intention of letting himself be taken alive. Or is the mere presence of a nasty manifesto enough to provide cops all they need to provide their own trial? What you're saying is that if a person is guilty enough, a trial isn't necessary. I find that train of thought to be abhorrent. And what's with your cute little smiley? That seems to be more of that insult and rancor you were referring to earlier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #139)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:39 PM

166. And you don't seem to understand

 

that you can't have a trial when Dorner had no intention of surrendering to go to trial.
How do you afford someone due process who has made it clear that they won't surrender and will die taking as many with him as he can?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #166)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:41 PM

168. You let them kill themselves?

How about that? At least then he would truly be denying his own due process. In the absolute worst case scenario, they could have waited him out which would have taken a couple days at most.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #168)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:31 PM

194. "The absolute worst case scenario"

would have been for the police to have tried "waiting him out" and for Dorner to have escaped, subsequently killing or injuring someone else, possibly an innocent civilian (or civilians), before once again being tracked, trapped, and either apprehended or killed.

In which case that civilian or his/her survivors would, no doubt, have blamed the police for allowing this highly dangerous individual to get away to kill again.

In all this back and forth you haven't addressed the possibility that Dorner might have escaped the encircling police. I'm wondering how you can be so certain such an escape--along with the possibility of him killing again--was absolutely impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #194)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:36 PM

195. If that were to have happened...

then the police were utterly worthless to begin with and had no business being there in the first place.

You can't make an assessment of how to deal with a deadly killer by assuming that police are incompetent jackasses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #195)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:11 PM

201. And you shouldn't make assumptions

about my assumptions.

I'm certainly not assuming the police were "incompetent jackasses" - though your working assumption seems to be that they're all murderous thugs. Rather, I'm saying that keeping a well-armed suspect, trained in police tactics, who has demonstrated an ability and willingness to kill, and a certain skill in escaping arrest and avoiding capture, neutralized in a wilderness area, with darkness approaching, is no easy task.

How much experience have you had tracking people in the wilderness? How can you be so absolutely certain there was no possibility he might not have been able to get away, especially at night, in such an isolated location?

This whole thing has been a terrific tragedy for everyone involved. But given the circumstances leading up to his death (perhaps by suicide) I'm not going at this point to second guess the cops involved in the final chapter, certainly not until there's a report and more of the details become clear.

If Dorner's rights were violated, I imagine his family will be able to avail themselves of legal recourse, and then the courts will make their own determination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #201)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:33 PM

204. He was totally surrounded.

It doesn't matter how much of a survivalist you are, if you're totally surrounded by a small army while in a small cabin, you're not escaping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #45)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:14 PM

210. 7 incendiary devices were delivered yet they don't know how the fire started?

Is this the position you are attempting to defend?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:01 AM

37. Aw, bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cliffordu (Reply #37)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:42 AM

58. You're right, setting houses on fire is SOP for PDs everywhere.

You REALLY think that's bullshit? I could provide you links of police everyday who manage to accomplish their jobs without setting people on fire, yet you think that's bullshit. What an incredibly silly and stupid thing to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #58)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:20 PM

214. not to mention the fact that fire removes all evidence

collecting evidence is part of the Police's job as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:11 PM

95. Such a situation is not daily or common

It makes the news. It is a dangerous situation, created by the perpetrator

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:19 PM

144. Really?

Every single day?

So.....how many other former police officers with special forces training have gone on killing sprees lately, after publishing manifesto's promising to bring "asymmetrical warfare" against private citizens.

How was this resolved last time. Which would have been yesterday, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:45 PM

196. Really? "A whole lot of cops

who handle similar situations" "every single day"?

On TV maybe, but I'm skeptical this happens very often in real life. I would think most cops go years and years and years without ever once having to fire their weapon in an actual life or death situation.

You really think facing down an alleged multiple killer, equipped with an arsenal, with training in fire arms and police tactics, who has announced his intent to kill again and never be taken alive, holed up in a cabin in the woods, is just your typical day for your average cop?

This seems to me rather unrealistic, to say the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #196)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:28 PM

203. Yes a whole lot of cops

I just spent twenty minutes compiling a long post filled with links and then accidently deleted it while going back and forth from article to article. I have a migraine coming on and I don't have it in me to go back and find all the articles again just now. I live in Fl and we seem to have quite a few hostage situations here, swat teams taking on snipers, etc. While I was looking I came upon lots of articles from all over the country.
None of these people were burned to the ground. Cops did not fire indiscriminately at women in trucks. The situations were handled in a professional manner.

Really, just do a search for armed hostage situation or snipers firing at police. You will come up with a ton of links.
Lots of people snap and I give the police credit that in general they handle the situations professionally.
Peace, Mojo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #196)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 05:15 PM

205. This cop thinks differently

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101799335
about the use of the incendiary device. A google search of armed hostage situations will bring up all manner of volatile situations
where police comport themselves professionally.
Peace, Mojo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 02:26 AM

15. The word you are searching for is "waiver"

Anyone may decline, of their own volition, to exercise a right.

You have a right to vote. What that means is that someone cannot prevent you from voting. You are, of course, free to decide not to vote. You are not compelled to vote.

In order to exercise your rights you must avail yourself of them. Your right to trial begins when you are arrested. In order to exercise your right to a trial, you must avail yourself of the process by being arrested. If you are evading lawful arrest, you are, by your own action, evading the exercise of your rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 02:37 AM

16. Some rights aren't waivable.

Here, they weren't even applicable.

Dorner was an active safety threat that needed to be neutralized. The standard in such instances is 'cops gotta do what they can to stop him.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:05 AM

28. That's exactly right.

What many people don't understand is if you are shooting at police, they have an OBLIGATION to use the same or greater force against you because you are a threat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:57 AM

17. Yup! That's right! No due process was lost here.

Dorner had every right to stop. He chose not to. That was his choice. That last day, he shot two more people, killing one.

There was no way to take him alive. LE acted appropriately. IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 04:05 AM

18. I'm not saying he was denied due process but I still can't

reconcile what happened. There have been plenty of situations where an armed and dangerous suspect was holed up in a building where they didn't rush in and burn it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:11 AM

35. One that killed four people?

and didn't surrender on his own? (which includes getting gassed)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 06:57 AM

22. So, was *this* "due process"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #22)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:02 AM

38. Different problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cliffordu (Reply #38)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 08:12 AM

44. From the OP

Shooting at cops will get you killed, and there's no constitutional right to the contrary.


Evidently *not* shooting at cops will get you killed too.

Is there a constitutional right which covers that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #44)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:12 PM

202. Indeed there is


Which is why the people on the receiving end of that incident will in fact claim and receive legal remedies for violations of their rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 06:59 AM

23. This conversation is SO STUPID. Confusing truly unrelated issues...

It has NOTHING TO DO with due process that he was killed but OF COURSE he has a right to due process.

However his right to due process does not preclude the fact that the police have a right to not be killed in trying to apprehend him.

The police DO have a responsibility to try to apprehend someone without killing them, but not at the cost of their own safety.

So your talking about how he doesn't have the right to due process is as imbecilic as another person talking about how his right to due process meant that he should't have been killed while firing at the police.

Do you agree with me, geek?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:00 AM

26. if that is all true....why do the cops need to lie about it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:07 AM

29. His post doesn't say Dorner didn't have a right to due process. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:18 AM

31. He had a right to due process. That right was not violated by the police.

Agreed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #31)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:56 AM

34. Well, I don't have enough facts.

To properly judge, I would have to be convinced that the police did not make a prior decision to kill him --which they may very well have. IF they did, they were wrong and violated his rights and committed a crime.

IF they were simply using necessary force, they did not violate his right to due process.

I do not have all the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:04 AM

39. Well, fuck.

We agree on something for the second time in two weeks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:12 AM

30. "Anyone who says that Chris Dorner was deprived of due process because cops stopped letting

themselves get shot while trying to arrest him is substituting political sympathy for his anti-LAPD manifesto for actual constitutional analysis."

Wrong. That's a blanket absolute, for which there are other possibliities.

That statement assumes they were trying to arrest him.

Summary execution by officers of the state is a real concern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #30)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:21 AM

32. As a legal matter, his due process rights were not violated.

He was given ample opportunity to surrender. He continued his armed resistance instead.

At that point, they can shoot him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:23 AM

33. Did the LEOs know without a doubt there was noone else in the cabin before the "burn the

Motherfucker" order was given?

In this country there are regularly standoffs that last many hours , days , even weeks.

This bullshit about " it was getting dark, had to end it quickly " is the lamest crap ever. According to the recordings , they sent in the grenades beore they had cover set up on two rear corners. WTF?

He appears to have been deliberately "fried" by LEO full of hate and rage that were going toned it t night no matter what ad to be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pkdu (Reply #33)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:51 AM

36. stand offs that last a long time are in situations where people aren't being shot at

or there are hostages and/or the perp is holed up in a place where escape isn't possible. In this situation, Dorner was shooting at anyone that moved, refused to surrender, likely had no hostages since he was chased into the cabin and it was a building where he might have had the opportunity to escape especially when it got dark. With all of that waiting him out was far too much of a risk by putting yet more people in danger of being shot or his being able to escape or both. Whenever a perp is shooting at the police that are trying to capture them there is no option of waiting them out, and they have to subdue the perp stat.

Why is there some difference in burning the cabin as apposed to the police shooting back at him? If one of the bullets the police shot back at him had hit and killed him would you or any here be just as up in arms that they shot and killed a murderer who was shooting at them??? I've yet to see one person complain that the police were shooting back at him seeing as they could have killed him that way. Burning the cabin whether it was an accident or on purpose was an attempt to force him to come out hopefully willing to surrender. But Dorner made the CHOICE not to just as all the other choices he'd made all week having no intension of surrendering. There is no question whatsoever by both his words and actions that he was not going to surrender though the police certainly did ATTEMPT to get him to surrender even though he was actively trying to kill them.

LE knew from the owner of the cabin that no one was in it. They chased him into the cabin while exchanging fire with him, and he was alone having just carjacked some guy's truck and shooting two officers one of which died. There was snow surrounding the cabin with no other footprints in it but his own going in and his footprints at the back of the cabin that led to a corral (which was why they were afraid at one point that he might have escaped). I'd say that's pretty much of a certainty that he had no hostages in the cabin, and seeing as they chased him into it, they more than likely saw him have to break in (probably lunged through a window) since I highly doubt that an unoccupied cabin was left unlocked.

LE being on the ground and involved in the situation had a fuck load more information to assess and determine the right course of action than us armchair investigators with nothing to go on but media reports.

It is monstrous to expect the police to wait out a perp that that is actively trying to kill them as if their lives are so easy to throw away like cannon fodder.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #36)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:06 AM

40. ^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #36)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:33 AM

54. "burning the cabin as apposed to the police shooting back at him"


That is a good question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #36)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:08 PM

187. +1! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #36)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:34 PM

222. " likely had no hostages since he was chased into the cabin ..." And..

..."and it was a building where he might have had the opportunity to escape especially when it got dark."

So you admit they weren't 110% sure no one else was in the building..then fired 7 "incendiary" devices into a wooden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pkdu (Reply #222)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:51 PM

226. Again, all the info together told them there were no hostages

And again, under the circumstances what they did was their best option. Police are NEVER 110% certain of anything. It isn't possible. That's life... having to make difficult decisions that are "best case" with all of the info that you have. And again, the info that THEY had was a shit load more than any that WE had. They also have the knowledge and experience that we DON'T have. But what info we DO have is that the best thing they reasonably COULD have done with the info they had and without putting more lives at unreasonable risk was what they did.

There were no hostages. Dorner did not burn to death. Dorner could have surrendered when they first threw in the burners but instead went deeper into the cabin to the basement where he shot himself. He could have surrendered at any time as they repeatedly asked that he do, but he CHOSE not to at any time even when the cabin started burning.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:09 AM

41. It is willful ignorance and purposeful mis-statements of facts such as this

 

that have allowed this nation to devolve to the point that we now represent evil and serve as a model of the antithesis of freedom in the world.

I expect this kind of excrement on Reich-wing sites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #41)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 07:26 AM

42. In what way were Chris Dorner's rights violated at that cabin? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #42)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:59 PM

127. He was executed by the police. Why didn't they just use a sniper to blow him away?

 

You and I both know why, because that is against the law and the aftermath would have been a big mess. What they did was to use an alternate method of execution that allows some vaguely plausible deniability to get around the laws that say police executions are not permitted. Laws that we have written for very good reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #127)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:03 PM

132. Um, no. They are allowed to use lethal force against dangerous suspects.

In this case, they did not even use lethal force.

They first used the weaker form of tear gas. That did not get him out of the cabin.

Then they used the harsher form that has the possibility of starting a fire.

The evidence suggests he did not die from the fire, but rather from a self-inflicted gunshot.

When the fire started, he was more than free to walk out with his hands on his head and surrender.

This was not an execution. They were not required to do everything possible to avoid killing this guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #132)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:37 PM

164. Why didn't you answer the question? Why not simply use a sniper to take him out?

 

You know why. You are twisting the facts to fit an outcome. They are required to do everything possible to avoid killing a suspect, and it is absolutely foreseeable that the use of an incendiary device in a wooden structure would lead to exactly what happened. This is the very definition of a nation of laws rather than men.

They had him, he wasn't going anywhere. There was no clock ticking, nothing to compel LACSD into lethal action. Burning suspects out is not lawful, or at least wasn't before this nation went insane.

So once again I'm back to my original reply. This corruption of logic in the name of vengeance is how we get to excusing all kinds of actions we used stand against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #164)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:45 PM

173. Why not use a sniper?

Because they couldn't see him.

This has been another example of short answers to painfully stupid questions.

And this is equally painfully stupid and incorrect:

They are required to do everything possible to avoid killing a suspect,


No, that is not true. It has never been true. No one who has ever read a criminal procedure or constitutional law case book would make such an ignorant argument.

They are supposed to balance the suspect's life against the threat he poses to the general public and to LEOs. They are not required to sacrifice their own lives or the safety of the general public to avoid killing the guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #173)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:54 PM

198. Before you go around throwing out terms like "painfully stupid"

 

and ignorant, you might want to look into some of that case law yourself. BTW, are you implying that you are a criminal attorney?

From The National Institute of Justice :
Police enforce social order through the legitimized use of force. Use of force describes the "amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject" . The levels, or continuum, of force police use include basic verbal and physical restraint, less-lethal force and lethal force.

Police officers should use only the amount of force necessary to control an incident, effect an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm or death.


From LexisNexis
§ 11.03 Crime Prevention; Deadly Force

Common and Statutory law – Deadly force may never be used in the prevention of a misdemeanor offense. Deadly force is permitted, however, in the prevention of a felony. A split of authority exists regarding the scope of the right to use deadly force in felony crime prevention. The minority broadly permits a police officer or private person to use deadly force upon another if he reasonably believes that: (1) such other person is committing any felony (including nonviolent felonies); and (2) deadly force is necessary to prevent commission of the crime. Most states, however, limit the right to use deadly force to the prevention of "forcible" or "atrocious" felonies.


There are several thousand references at both the federal and state levels as well as from the ACLU. Additionally, thousands more cases have been tried establishing just this premise.

I can certainly understand your desire to reinforce your erroneous position and emotional outburst, but it doesn't change the fact that this amounts to nothing more than your self-absorbed desire to ignore the law in favor of petty vengeance by using feigned outrage reinforced by argumentum ad populum.

I did however make two mistakes myself. One was to write "possible" when it should have been "reasonable", and the other was to keep this painfully stupid post kicked in replying. Consider both of them now resolved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #198)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 04:01 PM

200. Well, subsituting "possible" for "reasonable" radically changes

the meaning of what you wrote. Not exactly sporting to post one thing and then pretend you posted another.

I daresay you'd be hard pressed to find a court that would label the use of CS gas in these circumstances to be unreasonable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #41)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:35 AM

48. Instead of attacking the messenger,

 

refute his points.
What's not true?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #48)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:54 PM

124. I didn't attack the messenger, but rather the message he has flogged off in the OP.

 

The attempt to twist the double injustice of this into some kind of defense of another likely crime committed in the name of avenging another crime.

He didn't make any points. He appealed to the entirely justified outrage over this crazy man's actions by writing a series of irrelevant negatives, what due process is not. "Due Process of law is not a banana" either, but there is no more relevance in that than what was written.

Dorner was an insanely dangerous man that committed horrible crimes, but he still had the rights our Constitution recognizes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #124)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:02 PM

130. Yes he did have rights,

 

rights that HE refused to exercise, he had no interest in due process, no interest of a trial by jury, his only interest was killing cops and those that he perceived as having wronged.
Dorner and Dorner alone is responsible for his not receiving his right to due process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #130)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:22 PM

148. That's exactly what I wrote about in the initial reply, contorting the facts to fit

 

what we want. His rights are not dependent on his choice any more than they are granted by the Constitution. Almost any human being wants to have the Dorners killed, that is completely understandable. But going down that roads leads to a variety of bad ends and that's exactly why we have the requirement of the legal process.

150 years ago almost everybody wanted the majority in a southern community to be able to lynch black people with impunity, did that make lynching right, of course not, the very idea is absurd. But, they/we did it regularly because it was what they/we wanted, and the law be damned.

There was nothing preventing LACSD from waiting him out. There was nowhere to go and he would have been left with two options in the end, surrender or suicide. Either of those outcomes would have been perfectly within the law, but that's not what the people on the ground wanted, so they executed him.

Nobody's crying over the loss of this maniac, but tolerance for this kind of unlawful vigilantism is exactly how we get to the point of excusing all kinds of other atrocities.

Nobody has a problem with people exercising their right to wish everybody a nice day, that speech needs no protection. It is the patently offensive and most vile speech that must be protected. This is a similar case.

The fact that so many of us have lost sight of that, something that the Democratic Party used to stand up for, BTW, is the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:38 AM

49. Due process does not mean 'I see a truck, let's unload our weapons without warning'.

How many 'officers' opened fire on innocent people during this? Dorner plus the cops who shot the women delivering papers, and the surfer guy who was shot at. Were any of those three asked to surrender prior to the hail of cop gunfire? No, they were not.
The need to defend LAPD is not one I can relate to, as being from there I know that many of them are nothing but criminals with badges, like gang members shooting and stealing and promoting a culture of rape and of control.
To condemn Dorner is easy, his actions were violent, deadly and inexcusable. That does not mean LAPD are lambs o' innocence nor that their culture did not create this and many other monsters.
No citizen should be met with gunfire for driving a truck that kind of sort of looks like another truck, but that happened twice this week. Dorner's wrongs do not make that right. Those citizens were not asked to surrender, the cops did not bother to even look at who they were shooting at, they just shot like madmen. Ask questions later, let God sort them out, that sort of thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #49)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:26 AM

51. This is not about the abhorrent actions by those cops against those civilians.

This is about the bleating that Chris Dorner's due process rights were violated, that he was a victim of murder/lynching/vigilantism on the part of police.

Said bleating was not based on legal analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #51)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:03 PM

131. Those actions

have a direct relation to the prevailing law enforcement attitude towards Dorner - shoot firat a (maybe) ask questions later. That wild west shit doesn't fly and it's indicative that LEO never intended to arrest him alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #131)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:06 PM

133. They treated him like a highly dangerous suspect

who would kill them if given a chance.

He declared them enemy combatants and "high value targets" and stated his intent to stalk them in their homes and murder their wives, husbands, and children.

In several cases, he did just that. He murdered a young woman because her father was a cop.

So, yeah, he's going to be treated as a lethal threat.

As I said, there is no constitutional right to declare war on cops and their families and be treated as harmless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #133)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:11 PM

134. Tell that to the Republicans...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #134)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:15 PM

138. I'm citing the law. There is a right to not be presumed guilty.

There is not a right against being presumed a threat based on real time information.

Being guilty and being a threat are two different concepts with different legal and procedural standards.

Cops can't shoot anyone to punish them. They can shoot someone to neutralize the threat that person poses.

If you doubt this, then you also necessarily believe that police may never use lethal force, and that the fact they are armed is a violation of the constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #138)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:43 PM

171. Sense of humor.

Find one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #171)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:46 PM

174. Too many posts that would read like jokes in rational

company, e.g. "well if his rifle could hit a target 1000 yards away, the cops constitutionally were required to keep 1001 yards away instead of killing him" that humor is deader than a Dorner nail in this discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #131)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:13 PM

136. You are wrong.

 

Dorner made it crystal clear that he wasn't going to be taken alive and that he would kill any LEO that attempted to do so, sadly, he made good on his promise.
A dangerous fugitive who has shown a propensity for this kind of violence and his stated purpose of killing cops is taken at his word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:46 AM

59. the police are denying they deliberately burned the cabin

that's what this depends on, whether one believes them or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:54 AM

61. I'm not a fan of overzealous police

who believe that they have the authority to shoot first and ask questions later, but this was obviously not the case. Dorner was not a hero.
Dorner was not sought out by the police or mistakenly targeted. He sought them out, but he did not execute those he claimed had harmed him, he executed their loved ones.
The police are not some monolithic single minded force. They are made up of individuals. The officers who fired on innocent civilians are not the same officers that trapped Dorner.
Yes, it is at least possible that eventually Dorner would have given up. He had only killed two officers and two civilians at this point. The police could have taken the chance that he wouldn't mange to kill any of them while they waited. They could have taken the chance that Dorner wouldn't escape to kill civilians again. They didn't and I believe that they were right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:56 AM

62. All they need to do is look at the interviews with his former girlfriend.

Her name is Alicia Williams, and she dated him when he was working for LAPD, all those years ago. She said he was paranoid, disturbed, twisted--in sum, really MESSED up, and waving the weapons around even then.

This guy is no DB Cooper-esque hero. He was a seriously disturbed person in need of treatment--possibly hospitalization--and medication. He was also a very real danger to himself and others (as four "other" families have learned to their sorrow).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #62)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:05 AM

64. Thank you.

 

The victims and the families of the victims of that murderous monster are the ones that were denied due process, not Dorner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #64)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:53 PM

123. The ex-girlfriend's remarks are chilling--and she was in a relationship

with the guy when he was ON the LAPD.

I'll believe a woman who was in a relationship with the guy for many months and who experienced, personally, the vicissitudes of his personality before I'll take the word of one of my fellow keyboard commandos here on DU or anywhere else!

How many times do people have to say "Surrender" before it becomes apparent that the guy has no intention of doing that? And that's, of course, if we ignore his written statement, which was a "Thank The Academy"-style farewell which also said he was going down swinging while taking out as many of the "meanies" in his life as he could manage.

It's a bit patronizing, frankly, to not believe a guy who writes it down and then runs around killing people. He said he was going to target a bunch of people, that they were "active targets," he was going to kill them and their families, but we're supposed to say "Awww, poor baby--he didn't MEAN it!"

The tortured logic would almost be amusing if the subject matter were not so tragic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #123)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:18 PM

143. Maybe it's because of my background,

 

but I have a very difficult time trying to fathom anyone who says this monster was denied his due process right by the police.
This monster made it crystal clear that he had zero interest in availing himself to his right of due process, and was going to kill as many police as he could.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #143)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:39 PM

165. His suicide manifesto made it clear he intended to die.

He lamented not being able to see Hangover III and gave farewell instructions to everyone from Chris Christie to Joe Biden to Hillary Clinton to Ellen Degeneres to Tim Tebow...like these people give a shit about his opinions about what they should do, or his view of "effin awesome" Chick-Fil-A chicken and Charlie Sheen. The thing reads like the disjointed ramblings of a ramped up, overhyped, frantic individual who is spinning out of control.

He was plainly disconnected from reality, intent on a final "blaze of glory," determined to kill a lot of people--and heavily armed, to boot. That kind of thing never ends well.

I have a feeling that the Due Process Brigade would swiftly join the Mow Him Down Club if their family members were targeted by this guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #62)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:07 AM

66. Indeed, the irony is that the LAPD hires people like Chris Dorner.

He's a rotten fruit from the same poisonous tree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #66)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:56 PM

125. I think he made a very fine first impression, but didn't have the emotional fortitude or the

mental health to deal with stressful situations. That's probably why they hired him, and that's probably why they didn't keep him past his probationary period.

People seem to think this guy had a long career with the LAPD--he didn't. He didn't last two years, and he left the force in the summer of 2008 on suspension, and was terminated in Jan 09. He just didn't work out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #62)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:51 AM

82. I don't think those of us claiming lack of due process are claiming that he was a good guy.

I cannot believe people are saying in earnest that it is okay to burn a guy to death when he is trapped and cannot escape and not even positively identified as the murderer.

It's called a slippery slope.

You keep high standards of justice and what that means, and you do not make exceptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #82)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:59 AM

86. No, people are pointing out that the claims that it's been proven

that they burned him to death or that they intended to burn him to death are wild allegations without a substantial basis in reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #82)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:36 PM

119. You just slippery sloped the facts, there, if we're going to talk about those.

The guy was not 'burned to death.'

He shot himself before the cabin started burning. Of course, the other scenario "sounds" better.

Had he not shot himself, he likely could have escaped with his arms upraised to police custody--an armored vehicle had pulled down many of the exterior walls and busted out the windows by that point--it wasn't like he had to go find a door.

A "high standard of justice" includes keeping the citizenry safe from a rampaging spree killer. I can't help but notice your lack of care for that part of the equation. A spree killer using deadly force against law enforcement and innocent civilians, who refuses to surrender after being asked, time and time again, over the course of a week, has made his decision.

But go on and pretend none of those factors have any weight. I just don't buy that sort of tortured logic. The guy had options, he didn't opt to take them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:48 AM

78. Fail.

They burned him to death while he was trapped.

Judge. Jury. Executioner.

No due process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #78)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:07 PM

93. Actually, your statement is factually false on a number of levels.

1) He was not trapped. He was free to walk out and surrender at any time. That's why they use tear gas in these situations. Trapped would mean that he was chained to a 200 lb piece of concrete.

2) There is no evidence he burned to death.

His choice to hole up in a cabin. his choice to remain in there after they used standard tear gas. His choice to remain in the cabin after they used incendiary/CS gas. His choice to shoot himself in the head.

You should get your news from sources more reliable than Inforwars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #93)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:32 PM

156. Free to walk out?

The cops shot at two old women in a truck without warning or being threatened because they thought it was him.

Pretty sure he knew he was not free to walk out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #156)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:36 PM

161. He had a legal obligation to walk out and surrender.

So, no he was not trapped in there. He was physically free to walk out at any time.

His choices were to surrender or get his ass killed. There was no "set phasers to stun" option.

Please do not treat him like a victim who was trying to defend himself against aggression. That is militia talk.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #156)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:57 PM

181. He was free to surrender himself during his week on the run.

 

At any time during that week, he could have contacted a lawyer, the media, trusted friends and turned himself into any police station of his choosing with all witness's present, instead, he CHOSE the course of action, he CHOSE to continue his murderous spree which cost the life of an LEO and the wounding of another, he CHOSE to go out in the manner that he did and the country and the world is a better place without him.

I would have preferred that he be taken alive to stand trial, but Dorner had zero interest of that happening and he made it quite clear of his disinterest in that option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:07 PM

91. Thank you!

Finally some common sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:20 PM

147. Nice strawman! One side of the story has certainly been silenced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #147)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:12 PM

189. Not silenced, Just ignored outside of DU and Infowars. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:16 PM

212. Shooting at cops is likely to end in death

But surely we can also agree that due process does not include random shootings of trucks that may or may not partially match the criteria of one you are looking for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quakerboy (Reply #212)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:50 PM

216. Well, yeah. And aside from a teeny tiny number of people, no

one is defending those actions.

But it was a different group of human beings at that scene than were at that cabin. Imputing the lack of professionalism and sanity on those cops to the cops at that cabin is unwarranted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:17 PM

218. LOL !!! - Another "Great American" Pipes In... - Proving He Knows NOTHING Of BEING An American...






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #218)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:20 PM

219. Um, I knew he wasn't burned to death by police.

Unlike the outrage chorus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #219)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:36 PM

220. And You Are SO Lucky In That Way... And If I Were You... I'd Keep Kissing Corporate Ass...

It'll keep you warm and snug.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #220)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:41 PM

221. Can you at least stay on topic in your childish, baseless insults?

I mean, sorry that your that your Creative Speculation that the police murdered him has been proven to be a loony lie, but that's your fault not mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 06:45 AM

231. Some people resist arrest with lethal or potentially lethal violence

A significant percentage of them do not survive the process of arrest. No court has held that this sort of result deprives a person of "due process".

Occasionally an unarmed person who does not substantially resist arrest dies in the process. On occasion these are tried as civil rights violations and the family of the deceased wins.

It is a free country, so, we can think what we want about what the Constitution provides, however placing the case before a judge is where the final answer is found. Courts have fairly consistently held that a person who resists with violence loses all or most of this civil rights protection.

We can agree or disagree with this as it pleases our senibilities, but if tried, I predict fairly safely that the courts will not find a civil rights violation against Dormer in this arrest process.

Whether I agree with this result or not is precisely irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread