In the US?

You don't think it hasn't already happend?

Really doesn't take a lot, although the "airborne sniper" concept has been tried and it is very difficult to pull off at range.

So much out there...

Perhaps an IED-based kamikaze attack would be effective.

Pretty hard for police to deal with a guy like Dorner, by your standards. Spot him, confront him w/ your weapon drawn - he starts shooting - you're at fault. Spot him, confront him w/ your hands empty - he starts shooting - you're dead.

I think that every single time this guy engaged with police, an officer was shot. (Exception was the DFG wardens, he shot up their vehicle but they weren't hit). Makes sense no deputy was going to confront him without weapons drawn and aimed.

Sure would be. They also carry expendable "stuff" that is even more interesting.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but not really :D

There is nothing more inherently threatening from a larger UAS/Drone than a manned aircraft, none. They can both carry the weapons and sensors necessary to kill anyone, anywhere.

In fact, I have more privacy concerns over small civilian aircraft , think aerial surveyors, than I do drones...I get at least one visit a month from someone trying to sell me pictures of my farm, pictures they took without my permission.

I should start another thread...

Sorry in advance for the edit, couldn't hep myseff.

Police clearly were shooting first and asking questions later. Those circumstances don't leave you many options...innocent or guilty. As an innocent man, I still would not allow myself to be executed by a cop that was self appointed judge, jury, and executioner. What would you expect him to do, just let them shoot him to make a point? What point would it make? Wouldn't they still claim he was guilty as they so now?

Again, this thread sickens me.

The police had seen one of their own killed that day. They were in a fire fight with a mass murderer. For a bunch of f*cking internet sissies to sit around and question their actions is repulsive.

The only fire in the firefight was the one they set. Executing a trapped, surrounded man does not constitute a firefight.

I guess the rights in our Constitution only apply when convenient.

or when they get good ratings!

Exchanging 500 rounds with man who had just killed a colleague is not a firefight?

How is it that there are so many people that don't get this?
So you think the guys that commit the act are going to do a legit investigation, seriously?
How do you come up with stuff like this?
and we never will

he proved my point.

You seem to be evaluating this as if it was a war. It wasn't, police are held to a different standard than soldiers in battle. To misquote a movie - this isn't Nam, there are rules.

Try to separate your moral indignation about what a suspect may have done (remember, you may be convinced of what he did, but its not proved until proven in a court of law) and what the police are allowed to do under the law/constitution etc. Maybe that will help you understand where people are coming from. Not sayin you have to agree, but understanding is useful.

One side shooting 500 rounds at another does not constitute an "exchange"...

or a "firefight".

There is no more negotiation. That was proven with the assault on the pickup trucks of the 3 innocent victims. The militarization of police forces across America (not just LAPD) should have every citizen (not civilian) worried. How long before "collateral damage" becomes the norm for any operation? How the War on Terror Has Militarized the Police - Arthur Rizer & Joseph Hartman - The Atlantic

You register the script with the Writer's Guild of America.

As a side note, per company policy, I am prohibited from receiving, or in anyway looking at a script offered from outside the Company.

Fortunately for the two women in the pickup they failed at that.

More eloquently than I can put it

The primary mission of a police officer traditionally has been to "keep the peace." Those whom an officer suspects to have committed a crime are treated as just that - suspects. Police officers are expected, under the rule of law, to protect the civil liberties of all citizens, even the "bad guys." For domestic law enforcement, a suspect in custody remains innocent until proven guilty. Moreover, police officers operate among a largely friendly population and have traditionally been trained to solve problems using a complex legal system; the deployment of lethal violence is an absolute last resort.

Soldiers, by contrast, are trained to identify people they encounter as belonging to one of two groups -- the enemy and the non-enemy -- and they often reach this decision while surrounded by a population that considers the soldier an occupying force. Once this identification is made, a soldier's mission is stark and simple: kill the enemy, "try" not to kill the non-enemy. Indeed, the Soldier's Creed declares, "I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat." This is a far cry from the peace officer's creed that expects its adherents "to protect and serve."

Quit your whining. If you can't comprehend the thread, go somewhere else. For a f**king liberal pu**y from Seattle to throw out the Constitutional rights of a suspect before he has his day in court is the height of hypocrisy.

As to the title of the thread, I'll mark you down as "OK with them burning the cabin to the ground with him in it when they didn't need to."