About the killing of OBL and the wish to see him on trial:

[SmileyBoy]

I really haven't been on this site at all in the past few years. I joined this site shortly after 9/11 and was a frequent poster up until about 2008. (This was before DU was affiliated with blogs and journals and twitter/facebook, and it was JUST the discussion forums) I came to this site today to read what DUers are saying about this news.

I have seen an argument come up here that we "should" have took Bin Laden alive and brought him to trial. This idea however fails to recognize the actual events that took place.

When you have a suspect or target that you are trying to capture, and you engage them initially, you are giving that target the opportunity to turn themself in. The moment that the target/suspect decides to actually FIRE SHOTS at the enforcing officers (whether it's local police or Navy SEALS) and make an attempt to HARM those arresting officers by engage in a gun battle, the suspect/tagret in question has AT THAT POINT, with THOSE ACTIONS, told the arresting officers (or military personnel) that they are not willing to give themselves up and surrender. Therefore, legally (and this is true with even local police and some lone nut firing a gun at one officer) the arresting officer has the RIGHT to institute deadly force against the suspect.

The special ops going into that mansion probably knew that Bin Laden was not going to drop his gun and put his arms behind his back. And I mean, honestly, is that something you really think Bin Laden was going to do??

By going out guns blazing, Bin Laden was LEGALLY giving the arresting officials the go-ahead to use deadly force. This is the same shit as if a state trooper stopped a drug smuggler on the freeway, and the trooper found drugs in his car and had cause right there to arrest him, and the smuggler starts firing at the officer. The officer is NO LONGER LEGALLY LIABLE FOR THE SMUGGLER'S DEATH IF HE DIES FROM THE GUNFIGHT.

Authorities have the legal right to use deadly force on a suspect if that suspect is putting that authority's life in immediate danger. It's common knowledge.

Now actually, one CAN start the debate over if Obama was originally wanting to take him dead or alive (in the event of arms being dropped), or if they wanted to go in there and kill him no matter what happened. I personally cannot say. All I know that is the chance of the man actually willing to drop his arms and come peacefully and quietly with the SEALS is, well, I don't even want to say miniscule. I cannot envision a scenario where that occurs. I suppose if by some miracle Bin Laden chose to surrender, they might have brought him to trial, but what a lot of "pro-trial" people on this board fail to understand is that THE GUY WOULD NOT SURRENDER PEACEFULLY. To shout for a trial is to assume the guy would give up, and that's not the kind of guy he was, or the kind of ideology he had.

That's all I have to say. I did my best to explain it...