Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What "due process" does not mean: [View all]Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)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" [1]. 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
[A] 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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
239 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
A large portion of DU thinks that it's never okay for cops to kill someone.
geek tragedy
Feb 2013
#2
Can you offer even ONE link saying that, much less enough to prove a 'large portion'?
Bluenorthwest
Feb 2013
#47
You missed all the hysterical claims that this was a lynching, murder, vigilantism,
geek tragedy
Feb 2013
#50
Are you seriously asking how they didn't know that the standard tear gas didn't
geek tragedy
Feb 2013
#76
Due process does not require them to sit there forever waiting for the guy.
geek tragedy
Feb 2013
#89
The PD can not decide to kill based upon what they unilaterally determine is in the best interest of
EOTE
Feb 2013
#100
When a suspect is armed, dangerous, has killed, kidnapped, and carjacked and has refused to
geek tragedy
Feb 2013
#104
So you think that police have the right to murder anyone that doesn't surrender to them. Got it.
EOTE
Feb 2013
#178
Doesn't getting due process pretty much equal not being able to kill regardless of the threat?
dkf
Feb 2013
#92
And that's the nub of the issue--not only are the police 'allowed to use deadly force,' they
MADem
Feb 2013
#84
How are YOU so sure he wasn't already injured and unable to come out when the place got purposely
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2013
#208
You are talking about two different police departments, so stop with the "they" nonsense.
MADem
Feb 2013
#217
Not defending that guy......are you defending the ends justifying the means?
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2013
#225
Half Baked conspiracies? I have the audio archive to PROVE they fired incendiary devices
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2013
#229
You don't have "evidence." You have words you are interpreting in a specific way to suit your
MADem
Feb 2013
#234
No I have an actual audio recording ......admit it....you never even listened to see what I had!
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2013
#235
So that means YOU DIDN'T listen to the actual police scanner audio tape archived right?
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2013
#237
Reached it the same way you can....you can hear the orders with your own ears
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2013
#206
the sent "incendiary devices" into that building and then denied that they started the fire
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2013
#207
No, we ask that due process is followed regardless of whether or not the cops are really angry.
EOTE
Feb 2013
#53
did they bother to ask the old ladies delivering newspapers to surrender? Or the surfer?
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2013
#211
Jeffery Dahmer had heads in his fridge....yet he was asked to surrender....he got due process
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2013
#213
They "asked him to surrender" like they asked those two old ladies in the pickup to surrender?
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2013
#209
I am not defending him.....but are you defending the ends justify the means?
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2013
#224
In the case of subduing an armed, murderous lunatic, yes tear gas was justified.
geek tragedy
Feb 2013
#227
Based on his manifesto, I am pretty sure he wanted to go out in a blaze of glory.
LisaL
Feb 2013
#10
Their lips are moving? Or, you can listen to the radio feeds from when the fire was started.
EOTE
Feb 2013
#57
Why is it idiotic to think that Dorner started the fire after the cannisters were deployed?
Light House
Feb 2013
#75
7 incendiary devices were delivered yet they don't know how the fire started?
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2013
#210
"Anyone who says that Chris Dorner was deprived of due process because cops stopped letting
Hissyspit
Feb 2013
#30
Did the LEOs know without a doubt there was noone else in the cabin before the "burn the
pkdu
Feb 2013
#33
stand offs that last a long time are in situations where people aren't being shot at
TorchTheWitch
Feb 2013
#36
It is willful ignorance and purposeful mis-statements of facts such as this
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#41
He was executed by the police. Why didn't they just use a sniper to blow him away?
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#127
Why didn't you answer the question? Why not simply use a sniper to take him out?
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#164
I didn't attack the messenger, but rather the message he has flogged off in the OP.
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#124
That's exactly what I wrote about in the initial reply, contorting the facts to fit
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#148
Due process does not mean 'I see a truck, let's unload our weapons without warning'.
Bluenorthwest
Feb 2013
#49
This is not about the abhorrent actions by those cops against those civilians.
geek tragedy
Feb 2013
#51
I think he made a very fine first impression, but didn't have the emotional fortitude or the
MADem
Feb 2013
#125
I don't think those of us claiming lack of due process are claiming that he was a good guy.
Buzz Clik
Feb 2013
#82
LOL !!! - Another "Great American" Pipes In... - Proving He Knows NOTHING Of BEING An American...
WillyT
Feb 2013
#218