So, is everybody cool if they burned the cabin down without even trying to negotiate?

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

the next Tom Clancy? or Jack Olson? Seriously, do you expect murder by drone to happen in 2013? or next year?

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...

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Perhaps an IED-based kamikaze attack would be effective.

[jyl]

Originally Posted by fintstone

If the police are shooting at me...you had better believe I am shooting back. Actions have consequences. Police do not get to decide whether you are guilty or innocent. That is why we have trials.

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.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

Perhaps an IED-based kamikaze attack would be effective.

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

Sorry to hijack the thread, but not really

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...

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by jyl

Pretty hard for police to deal with a guy like Dorner, by your standards. Spot someone who doesn't even come close to fitting dorner's description driving a pick-up truck of a different color, model, and make, and start shooting indiscriminately filling the truck with holes. 3 different times - you're at fault.

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

[fintstone]

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?

[HardDrive]

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.

[fintstone]

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

[fintstone]

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

[Shaun @ Tru6]

or when they get good ratings!

[HardDrive]

Originally Posted by fintstone

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

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

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

Again, let's be clear, Chris Dorner deserved to die. The police did not have the right to decide that. They should have exploited every opportunity to take him into custody, because that's what we pay them to do. We pay Judges to sentence them.

How is it that there are so many people that don't get this?

Originally Posted by KC911

I respectfully disagree...let's have a jury trial if that's what you think and put the "decision maker" (not some hothead heard on the radio) before 12 citizens to decide. The chances of a "guilty" verdict are not even slim...and you know it

So you think the guys that commit the act are going to do a legit investigation, seriously?

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

no you won't. you've fabricated a comfortable story for yourself. nothing will sway you from idolizing Dorner as a hero.

How do you come up with stuff like this?

Originally Posted by McLovin

But again, I don't think any of us know all the salient facts yet.

and we never will

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Tobra

How do you come up with stuff like this?

he proved my point.

[911-32]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

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.

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.

[fintstone]

Quote de fintstone

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

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

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

or a "firefight".

[craigster59]

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

[Hugh R]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

Hugh, how do I get movie rights for the next action blockbuster on murder by drone? Or reality TV show, Drone Wars, mixing drones and a little of Running Man.

I can start working on the script this weekend.

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.

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by Hugh R

People don't seem to understand that when cops shoot, they shoot to kill. I hear stories of "Oh, they shot him 42 times" When cops shoot, they don't shoot to disable like in the movies. Like I said earlier, I've had a few pull overs by cops, but never a bad one.

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

[911-32]

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."

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

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.

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."