Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that is the point, we do not know (and now we will never know) exactly what Dorner did or did not do. There was, and will be, no trial, no conviction if guilty, no knowing even a small piece of the truth. There was no due process, only an execution by the LAPD.
You think that law enforcement firing upon two trucks that they believed contained someone who had already killed multiple innocent people in cold blood was worse than the crimes of hunting down and killing those innocent people?
Wow.
It doesn't work like that. Seriously, you can't operate the law that way. In fact, not only are the laws very strict about when a police officer can fire, but many departments extend on those policies even more.
Shooting at vehicle that you "believe" (ie you are not certain) contains a suspect is not a justified use of force. Not only that, but use of force MUST consider the safety of those around the target being shot at and unless it is certain that the suspect is there, can be seen, and there is a reasonable "immediate" endangerment of another (it would immediately save their life), then they are not authorized to fire.
If you took a use of force test applying that thinking, you would fail miserably and there are numerous cases throughout law enforcement history where the officer who acted with such reckless action were not only dismissed from the department, but brought up on charges by the DA.
You don't do what they did... EVER. They aren't Bruce Willis and this ain't Diehard.
I think that is the point, we do not know (and now we will never know) exactly what Dorner did or did not do. There was, and will be, no trial, no conviction if guilty, no knowing even a small piece of the truth. There was no due process, only an execution by the LAPD.
Exactly, which is why our procedure in law exists a certain way. It is why we have so many protections for if we allow such resolutions to occur, it WILL be used criminally. We have years of reports, court cases, etc... of police officers using such tactics in the past. That is why procedure is so strict these days.
It scares the hell out of me that people would so blindly support such an action. Do they really want our law enforcement to apply 3rd world practices?
Of course the police were out to get him. He had already killed how many? Three? innocent people and was clearly trying to kill more. If the police aren't trying to get (apprehend) him there is something very wrong.
Second, you're arguing that the police had no business using tear gas because of the possibility that it would cause the cabin to burn down? Again, an absurd proposition. He had acted in such a way as to justify deadly force to apprehend him. Once he refused to surrendur the police would have been justified in shooting him through an open window if they had had a shot. They apparently made the judgment that they could not approach the cabin without undue risk to themselves so they used the tear gas to incapacitate him. This is a judgment that they were entitled to make under the law. There is no principle of law in any jurisdiction in the United States that requires the police to expose themselves to the risk of being shot by a criminal suspect in order to avoid harm to that suspect.
You don't know what happened, what communications were occurring, or what orders were given. Neither do I. This incident will be exhaustively investigated and there will be a full report. I know that the report won't satisfy the conspiracy nuts, but those of us in the reality-based community will know pretty much what happened as far as it is knowable.
It doesn't work like that. Seriously, you can't operate the law that way. In fact, not only are the laws very strict about when a police officer can fire, but many departments extend on those policies even more.
Shooting at vehicle that you "believe" (ie you are not certain) contains a suspect is not a justified use of force. Not only that, but use of force MUST consider the safety of those around the target being shot at and unless it is certain that the suspect is there, can be seen, and there is a reasonable "immediate" endangerment of another (it would immediately save their life), then they are not authorized to fire.
If you took a use of force test applying that thinking, you would fail miserably and there are numerous cases throughout law enforcement history where the officer who acted with such reckless action were not only dismissed from the department, but brought up on charges by the DA.
You don't do what they did... EVER. They aren't Bruce Willis and this ain't Diehard.
Maybe you should reread my post. I didn't say anything even suggesting that the police acted correctly in shooting at two trucks with innocent people in them. They apparently acted negligently, possibly even with gross negligence.
Still, that doesn't compare to Dorner's multiple actions of premeditated murder. You like to portray yourself as knowing what you're talking about, but if you really think that negligence by the police is worse than premeditated murder you don't know anything.
Of course the police were out to get him. He had already killed how many? Three? innocent people and was clearly trying to kill more. If the police aren't trying to get (apprehend) him there is something very wrong.
Second, you're arguing that the police had no business using tear gas because of the possibility that it would cause the cabin to burn down? Again, an absurd proposition. He had acted in such a way as to justify deadly force to apprehend him. Once he refused to surrendur the police would have been justified in shooting him through an open window if they had had a shot. They apparently made the judgment that they could not approach the cabin without undue risk to themselves so they used the tear gas to incapacitate him. This is a judgment that they were entitled to make under the law. There is no principle of law in any jurisdiction in the United States that requires the police to expose themselves to the risk of being shot by a criminal suspect in order to avoid harm to that suspect.
You don't know what happened, what communications were occurring, or what orders were given. Neither do I. This incident will be exhaustively investigated and there will be a full report. I know that the report won't satisfy the conspiracy nuts, but those of us in the reality-based community will know pretty much what happened as far as it is knowable.
No one is arguing that the police should not have been looking to apprehend Dorner but the way that they went about it was clearly wrong. They shot at 3 innocent people. You can't just shoot at people because you think that they *might* be the person you are looking for. It's not only dangerous, it's extremely lazy and illegal.
The police were heard yelling, "burn the mother****** down", repeatedly. Of course they intentionally burned the cabin down. BTW, why were the LAPD even there? Dorner was not found in their jurisdiction.The only logical reason I can think of is that they were allowed to be there to exact revenge. It's not OK to burn down a cabin just because you think the man inside is your man. You have to at least TRY to get him out alive, first. How long did it take for them to torch the cabin? Not long. What if it wasn't him? Then what?
I have no idea why you think that people questioning the actions of the police who were clearly in violation of the law are "conspiracy nuts" Now that is bizzare.
Exactly, which is why our procedure in law exists a certain way. It is why we have so many protections for if we allow such resolutions to occur, it WILL be used criminally. We have years of reports, court cases, etc... of police officers using such tactics in the past. That is why procedure is so strict these days.
It scares the hell out of me that people would so blindly support such an action. Do they really want our law enforcement to apply 3rd world practices?
I agree completely. The police are not the military. The police exist to enforce the law, not terminate the accused. Everyone needs to be treated as if they are innocent under the law, even when we are absolutely certain that is not the case. Until there is a trial and either an acquittal or a conviction, there is no due process.
Maybe you should reread my post. I didn't say anything even suggesting that the police acted correctly in shooting at two trucks with innocent people in them. They apparently acted negligently, possibly even with gross negligence.
Still, that doesn't compare to Dorner's multiple actions of premeditated murder. You like to portray yourself as knowing what you're talking about, but if you really think that negligence by the police is worse than premeditated murder you don't know anything.
It is worse. Why? Because they are given authority which requires them to place the safety of the public first. Dorner committed crimes, but was not doing so under the authority of the law.
They have a larger duty and responsibility and when they disregard that, it is a heinous offense. Hence California law having automatic maximum sentencing for any officer convicted of a crime.
Exactly, which is why our procedure in law exists a certain way. It is why we have so many protections for if we allow such resolutions to occur, it WILL be used criminally. We have years of reports, court cases, etc... of police officers using such tactics in the past. That is why procedure is so strict these days.
It scares the hell out of me that people would so blindly support such an action. Do they really want our law enforcement to apply 3rd world practices?
1) you kill cops kids
2) you kill cop A
3) on the day of the event you kill another cop
4) you have sent a manifesto that details your willingness to die in a fight with police
5) you shoot at SWAT, and you are a trained SNIPER. . .and you seem very well armed.
Now I don't see how/what is so odd with an escalating response from police department. Judge/trial/jury is always a best outcome. . .but there is no reason to risk the life of one police person to get that outcome? If you are shooting, you will be shot. Its not trial/jury/judge at that point, its stopping the threat without risk to police or people.
I'm not exactly sure why this is so hard to grasp.
If a father kills the man who murdered his child, that father will go to prison. If we don't accept vigilante justice for the general public then we cannot accept vigilante justice for the police. It's really that simple.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
