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

[Baz]

Originally Posted by fintstone

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

Cops were killed.

That changes EVERYTHING.

It's tradition.

Protect and serve.

What's a constitution?

[Baz]

Folks.....let's not lose sight of the most important part of this story.......

Dorner let the Dalmatian go!

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by fintstone

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

or a "firefight".

Yesterday's scoreboard:

Dorner - 1

Cops -1

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by McLovin

Yesterday's scoreboard:

Dorner - 1

Cops -1

Constitution - 0

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Gun Dealers: +1,000,000

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

Constitution - 0

There's a timeout while that score is under review.

(The other two are most definitely final).

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by McLovin

There's a timeout while that score is under review.

(The other two are most definitely final).

Tru dat. The Jury is still out.

[Head416]

I don't really care about Dorner. What concerns me is setting a precedent that a cop on site can determine in an instant whether you or I can be executed. What if a dirty cop attacks me and I shoot him in self defense, then run into my house fearing the vengeance of his friends? I don't want his buddy to be able to torch me before I get a chance to tell my side of the story, and I probably wouldn't feel safe walking outside while 30 of his buddies have their sights on me. Here I sit, thinking I can get in touch with a lawyer, or have a different jurisdiction take me into custody, and all of a sudden I'm trapped in a burning building.

The issue is: Does an on site commander have the right to decide who lives and who dies, using his own judgement and incomplete information? That sounds like Judge Dread.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by Head416

I don't really care about Dorner. What concerns me is setting a precedent that a cop on site can determine in an instant whether you or I can be executed. What if a dirty cop attacks me and I shoot him in self defense, then run into my house fearing the vengeance of his friends? I don't want his buddy to be able to torch me before I get a chance to tell my side of the story, and I probably wouldn't feel safe walking outside while 30 of his buddies have their sights on me. Here I sit, thinking I can get in touch with a lawyer, or have a different jurisdiction take me into custody, and all of a sudden I'm trapped in a burning building.

The issue is: Does an on site commander have the right to decide who lives and who dies, using his own judgement and incomplete information? That sounds like Judge Dread.

Bingo. And that's why we have a 5th Amendment.

[fintstone]

As long as the guys that are ok with this..,are ok with allowing the police to decide on the spot...which of their Constitutional rights can be suspended...if they have some type contact with the law.

[Tobra]

You guys need to read post 210 until you understand it.

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

He proved my point.

I understand that you believe this to be the case. I disagree. If you could point it out to my ignorant ass, I will be grateful until lunch time at the very least.

[rusnak]

Any defense attorney will have no problem establishing precedence for suspending Constitutional rights. They are NOT absolute, and can be suspended justifiably, such as the right to vote, citizenship rights, right to a fair trial, right to own a gun, right to the pursuit of happiness, etc etc....these are suspended when you are a convicted felon, a terrorist, or pose an imminent threat to life.

The issue is whether he posed an imminent threat. That is the debate.

What is not in debate is whether the PD set the fire purposefully. Re-read this thread if you have doubt.

Also not in debate is that this guy was not an ordinary guy on the street minding his own business, nor was he acting in "self defense" as in the example posted by Head in Post # 208.

Not in debate is the fact that you are not allowed to kill in order to "clear your name". I don't care how much he thinks he's Django or some wronged person. You can't go out and kill people because of your perceived injustice.

Will a jury decide that the guy was an imminent threat to more lives? I would say yes. I don't think they could have taken him realistically without losing more lives, or at least the reasoning that he was an imminent threat was pretty sound.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by rusnak

Any defense attorney will have no problem establishing precedence for suspending Constitutional rights. They are NOT absolute, and can be suspended justifiably, such as the right to vote, citizenship rights, right to a fair trial, right to own a gun, right to the pursuit of happiness, etc etc....these are suspended when you are a convicted felon, a terrorist, or pose an imminent threat to life.

The issue is whether he posed an imminent threat. That is the debate.

What is not in debate is whether the PD set the fire purposefully. Re-read this thread if you have doubt.

Also not in debate is that this guy was not an ordinary guy on the street minding his own business, nor was he acting in "self defense" as in the example posted by Head in Post # 208.

Not in debate is the fact that you are not allowed to kill in order to "clear your name". I don't care how much he thinks he's Django or some wronged person. You can't go out and kill people because of your perceived injustice.

Will a jury decide that the guy was an imminent threat to more lives? I would say yes. I don't think they could have taken him realistically without losing more lives, or at least the reasoning that he was an imminent threat was pretty sound.

None of what you say absolves the police of their responsibility to uphold the constitution. They were in control, not him. They chose to kill him, rather than examine other options.

As I said earlier, I would have been much more impressed if they had managed to apprehend him. It was a lot easier, and apparently more popular, to just kill him.

[Rot 911]

Originally Posted by rusnak

You can't go out and kill people because of your perceived injustice.

Isn't that what the cops almost did to the two women in the pick up truck. And isn't that what they eventually did to Dorner when they fired in the burners?

[rusnak]

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

None of what you say absolves the police of their responsibility to uphold the constitution. They were in control, not him. They chose to kill him, rather than examine other options.

As I said earlier, I would have been much more impressed if they had managed to apprehend him. It was a lot easier, and apparently more popular, to just kill him.

I don't think you're understanding the way the law works. It's applied to facts, not applied as if in a vacuum, or as an absolute. You have the right to life unless you take another's life. Even if you are no longer a threat. Even California has the death penalty.

Second, and this is your point if I understand it, the police have no right to use lethal force. That is not true if you are a threat and do not give up. The pd did try to get him to give up. They gave him a chance to give up, and they would be obligated to arrest him. He of all people knew that. By not giving up, that gave the cops the justification they needed to kill him. The PD can and do justifiably kill people every day, in every city. Did we the people give them that authority? Not directly, but it's the law of our land, and we the people created that law....

[rusnak]

Originally Posted by Rot 911

Isn't that what the cops almost did to the two women in the pick up truck. And isn't that what they eventually did to Dorner when they fired in the burners?

Dorner was using his manefesto as justification for killing people. He was basically saying that his life and the lives that he took were needed to make his point for justice....etc etc.

the cops you mention were acting stupidly, and were unprofessional. I'm not sure what parallel you are trying to draw here.

[intakexhaust]

zoa nom^^^ Would you rather have the criminal in control? Good the 'LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL's' finally had it under control. Lets go back again. The criminal CLEARLY ADMITTED his mission and FOLLOWED through... therefore flat out guilty. This guy was way gone and a killer of civilians, fathers, law enforcement. NO TRIAL and nothing more is needed. He CLEARLY wanted to go down in a BLAZE! Why waste 4 years or so of litigation, further expense plus prison expense. This rabid individual was to keep killing NO MATTER WHAT circumstances. Sorry to call him that and my only compassion for him was apparently the lack or of seeking mental health care. He had no compassion to anothers life. What happens now with the LAPD and the cause of this guys rampage is another matter. I'm not impressed the way the PD handled it all but glad they ended it OUT THERE and this killer is gone. Done.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by rusnak

Any defense attorney will have no problem establishing precedence for suspending Constitutional rights. They are NOT absolute, and can be suspended justifiably, such as the right to vote, citizenship rights, right to a fair trial, right to own a gun, right to the pursuit of happiness, etc etc....these are suspended when you are a convicted felon, a terrorist, or pose an imminent threat to life.

The issue is whether he posed an imminent threat. That is the debate.

What is not in debate is whether the PD set the fire purposefully. Re-read this thread if you have doubt.

Also not in debate is that this guy was not an ordinary guy on the street minding his own business, nor was he acting in "self defense" as in the example posted by Head in Post # 208.

Not in debate is the fact that you are not allowed to kill in order to "clear your name". I don't care how much he thinks he's Django or some wronged person. You can't go out and kill people because of your perceived injustice.

Will a jury decide that the guy was an imminent threat to more lives? I would say yes. I don't think they could have taken him realistically without losing more lives, or at least the reasoning that he was an imminent threat was pretty sound.

no, they cannot legally be suspended

what you are thinking of is the balancing tests that courts use to determine the extent of each right

[jyl]

Correct. No constitutional right is "absolute". They are all subject to balancing and judgment.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by jyl

Correct. No constitutional right is "absolute". They are all subject to balancing and judgment.

but, but, but... noooo. they are constitutional rights.

guaranteed.

we don't need to be responsible for our actions, we have constitutional rights.

they protects us.