I wonder how many people claiming Dorner was denied due process

it is hypocritical for some DUers to oppose what they consider to be a summary execution and at the same time to be supportive of Assange's refusal to answer to trumped up charges that are pursued as a means to punish him for his activism. I'm not seeing where you find the inconsistency here. Why would anybody who supports due process would consider themselves obligated to support politically motivated prosecution? I think your idea needs more time at the drawing board.

Did you discern that via due process?

Answer thus far: 1

question. Where is the conflict between the two positions you seem to dislike?

I fail to see how you could use those words without forming an opinion.

subscribing to something.

He's in no danger of getting Gitmo'ed or droned or black sited by virtue of the fact he stood in a UK court all that time and freely walked the streets of London. If Obama (or the dark shadowy PTB I hear about so often from others) wanted him bad enough they had plenty of opportunities. I refuse to believe the nation that can zot Usama bin Laden would be too helpless to snatch Assange from a client state.

Meanwhile, Dorner was not denied due process because he shot and killed a forest service police officer (not LAPD) who happened to drive past him and take notice. He died in the ensuing confrontation rather than go to court where he could spew whatever diatribe he wanted in what surely would have been the most televised trial ever.

and one was denied it.

How difficult is that to understand?

He'd give himself up as a martyr and allow the non-alleged-rapists that did all the actual hard work to continue.

Serious question. I've read your post several times.

It is true that anti-authoritarian types that support Assange will also likely "sympathize" with Dorner's rampage, or his motives anyway, but it is not because of any affection for the "justice system" in either case.

is also probably persecuting Assange by sending him back to a country to face charges trumped up by victims who were supporters laying in wait (literally).

Lots of verdicts, so little due process.

3, so far.

In fact it has to work properly most of the time or misusing it stops working as well, people notice, it loses credibility, so ...

Due process has always been denied at the limits, looking back I am tempted to think it's better today, but I know it's not.

In this case, I would say Dorner got what he wanted, Assange is naive and did not.

Dorner's denial of due process isn't a "claim", and Assange isn't being pursued in the interest of justice.

Maybe you should ask in a thread where they are claiming this.

I didn't have to start a new thread to ask you a question.

it would quite time-consuming to search by-name posts of Dorner apologists and cross-reference those with apologies of Assange and even then it would probably violate TOS as a "call-out."

However, having them to reveal themselves is their facorite past time.

However, there are very few parallels between the two.

But he, too, was murdered.

But, I get your point. There are those here at DU ...

Dorner was killed after HE murdered a law enforcement officer, exchanged fire with others, and refused to surrender. There was nothing "unlawful" about his death. If you don't like the way it went down, that's your perogative; but calling it "murder" is flatly false.

Murder in the first degree.

They weren't even positive it was him in the cabin until the found his i.d.

My God.

By no definition (other than the one you WANT it to be) was the killing of Christopher Dorner a murder.

I understand that you wish it had been handled differently, but your wishes are not automatically codified into law.

(And FYI finding his driver's license was not considered a positive identification. However, the body has now been positively ID'd via Dorner's dental records.)

Take off. I'm done with you.

It's a justifiable homicide. Dorner is the only one who denied Dorner due process.

2. As far as Assange is concerned, as a citizen of another country, what US laws has he broken and what "music" should he face?

...Why waste time responding at all?

No, you just want to argue, and I'm not in the mood.

...You made a statement and I asked for more information to help me understand what you posted.

Just my opinion, but I think your response tells me all I want to know.

Have a great day.

from such entities before he has an 'accident'.

If due process is 'we have him cornered, lets kill him' to you than would you also cheer the government, when they get their hands on someone they fear and are pissed at, somehow doing the same with assange? After all we could just label him a terrorist and blow him up when he is on a bus full of little kids and call that 'due process/defending America' and no one would ask for proof otherwise.

Due process remains something that is due for many which they will never get because they can no longer talk to defend themselves.

You're kinda falling into the group the OP is calling out.

in a substantial way.

A bunch of angry cops from the LA area cornered Dorner who they felt was guilty of murder within the "family". So, now he's gone. Point taken: no due process.

Assange allegedly has broken a handful of laws (ignoring the rape charge for a moment), most of which deal with security issues. If the US government wanted him dead for his nasty little leaks, he'd be dead. They wouldn't need a legion of incompetent cops (who can fire over 100 bullets at two innocent people and only hit the mark twice) to clumsily bludgeon him to death or burn him or drop a piano on his head. Assange would simply die. Arresting him and killing him in jail would be too noisy, too dirty.

LAPD had nothing to do with the final chapter of Dorner, it was the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Dept. op with tactical assistance from the U.S. Marshal's Service and the FBI.
It wasn't even in L.A. County, it happened in San Bernardino County.

I just wasn't sure, there have been people who have said that the LAPD were the ones that ran the op.
Sorry about that.

and when he wasn't in court he was free to walk the streets. If the US wanted Assange bad enough Obama could have ordered the CIA to snatch him up or had the UK do it.

Nor is it likely or even suspected that Sweden would do likewise after Assange was accused by women who were once his ardent confederates.

This is just a morbid fantasy to escape due process which seems to betray a consciousness of guilt.

In assange's case he did, as you have just pointed out, get due process - he used the law to fight extradition to a place where he believed he would not get a fair trial. Something any intelligent person would do - he had options to exercise after being in custody.

Dorner never got into custody. Perhaps he shot himself, in which case tough luck. However the police here had the ability to out last him, bring in a negotiator, and possibly capture him alive. For all we know he went insane, he is still due his day in court.

The base principal that I focus on is that the police are the not ones who convict someone of a crime and carry out punishment in the manner they did here. He is shooting, you shoot back in self defense, that is one thing. When you have someone trapped and can sit behind your vehicles with swat snipers pointed at every window you could pretty much call that scene secure (which it was not initially).

Once it is secured and the heat of battle is over, you now have an obligation to ensure you do all you can to get the person wanted their due process. But he killed cops. So they would kill him. If he had been some white guy who killed black gang members I am guessing they wouldn't have burned the place down.

it is exactly the same self proclaimed 'progressives' and 'anti-authoritarian' types who champion both men.

I'm a criminal defense attorney. These are exactly the jurors I pick--they will invent reasons why your guy is innocent and being framed because they emotionally invest with the accused as opposed to the victim. This is especially true for drugs and sex crimes.

You'd think self-proclaimed progressives would be the first to reject notions that women are sexual chattel in service a patriarchichal social order.

Witch hunting season already?
I'd better get my permit

threads is a curious thing--- the notion that a man's political leaning or the art they create is somehow indicative of their character... you find even self proclaimed feminists on this board indulging in ludicrous CIA conspiracies in order to protect certain males.

As you noted upthread, Assange is behaving exactly as a guilty person would. The only people who cannot see that are those emotionally invested in a man they've never met.

Dorner had ample opportunity to surrender during the week he was on the run, he could have and should have contacted a lawyer, the media, and trusted acquaintances and gone to any police station of his choice, didn't have to be an LAPD station, and surrendered in front of all those witness's.

Instead, Dorner continued his murderous rampage and in the end, still refused to surrender.
The only who denied Dorner due process, was Dorner himself.

The country and the world are a better place without this murderous monster.
Unfortunately, he destroyed lives and families before he was taken down, he didn't afford them due process.

police who were not Dorner, who did not look like him, whose auto did not share color, make or model with his, who were not warned, who were not in fact asked to identify themselves much less to surrender before they were blasted with a hail of police gunfire.

I suggest that even had that been Dorner, what they did was not acceptable. Shoot first, ask questions later. Let God sort them out.
If your concern is for rights denied then there you go. Cops opening fire on random vehicles without warning and without any reason to fire whatsoever.
Fellow citizens, innocent in every way, shot at and you suggest we speak of Dorner and Assange? I really don't get it. Sorry.