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

[ZOA NOM]

The police are not the ones who get to decide when your constitutional right has been forfeited. If a cop shoots a suspect in a firefight, it is justifiable, but once police have control of the situation, they are responsible for their actions. Dorner was trapped in the cabin with a limited ability to inflict harm on anyone else. The cop who he killed was shot while chasing him into the cabin. Once inside, he was contained, and they could have simply waited for him to starve, for Christ's sake. They chose to kill him, and they didn't have to.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by jyl

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

emphasis on the root word, "judge".

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by rusnak

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.

When is it applied? At the scene? Or in the court?

Second, and this is your point if I understand it, the police have no right to use lethal force.

You clearly misunderstand it.

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.

Still waiting for a source on this.


The PD can and do justifiably kill people every day, in every city.

Really? When those people are trapped, and have no chance of escape, they just kill them? Or do you mean that police fire back and kill some suspects? Because there's a difference.

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....

And it should be applied in court, by a judge and jury, not by police officers.

..

[rusnak]

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

The police are not the ones who get to decide when your constitutional right has been forfeited. If a cop shoots a suspect in a firefight, it is justifiable, but once police have control of the situation, they are responsible for their actions. Dorner was trapped in the cabin with a limited ability to inflict harm on anyone else. The cop who he killed was shot while chasing him into the cabin. Once inside, he was contained, and they could have simply waited for him to starve, for Christ's sake. They chose to kill him, and they didn't have to.

This part is the issue. The cops don't decide the law, but they can decide based on the situation if you pose a threat. If you do, then your life is not Constitutionally protected.

In other words, not everyone has the same rights all the time. You can't at one moment kill someone then the next, play the law card. If they had apprehended him, and had him in custody, or if he had given up, then I would say that they had a legal obligation to take him into custody to stand trial.

But when the bullets are flying, he's throwing smoke charges, etc....how do you require 9 to 5 wage earner cop guys, who have their own families, to go into that house or anywhere near the line of fire to take Dorner in alive? I don't really see how we can look at the situation, with all of the facts, and determine that Dorner was no longer a threat. I think if anything, the scale tips toward the cops here, and that he was more of an active threat than not.

[rusnak]

Zoa, let's forget about Dorner for a second. Let's say that a cop pulls over a motorist for a traffic stop. Say this motorist has a gun or knife and starts waving it around. The cop can shoot the guy dead right then and there, and be well within the law. He has no legal obligation to haul a dangerous person in before a judge and jury.

As for whether the cops tried to get Dorner to give up, I believe the audio was already posted, or a link to the audio. Go look up the transcripts of the pd scanners. They tried, briefly, to get Dorner to come out using loudspeakers. They also took all day before they decided to burn the house down, and possibly drive him out or let him die in the fire. They were not going to risk any firemen or police lives by trying to save his.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by rusnak

Zoa, let's forget about Dorner for a second. Let's say that a cop pulls over a motorist for a traffic stop. Say this motorist has a gun or knife and starts waving it around. The cop can shoot the guy dead right then and there, and be well within the law. He has no legal obligation to haul a dangerous person in before a judge and jury.

As for whether the cops tried to get Dorner to give up, I believe the audio was already posted, or a link to the audio. Go look up the transcripts of the pd scanners. They tried, briefly, to get Dorner to come out using loudspeakers. They also took all day before they decided to burn the house down, and possibly drive him out or let him die in the fire. They were not going to risk any firemen or police lives by trying to save his.

I would not be making any argument at all, if the cop he killed had gotten the drop on him, and killed Dorner instead. I totally support the concept of deadly force. The problem I have comes after time has elapsed, and the control of the situation has shifted to the authorities. Why not wait him out? Simply because it was getting dark? That's ridiculous. They had complete control.

Take your motorist, and put him in a panel van, into which the cop cannot see, and he finally pulls to the side of the road because the van is disabled. You saying the cops are then within their deadly force to light the van on fire?

[rusnak]

OK, taking your analogy, let's say the motorist shoots someone, then retreats into a panel van. The cops don't know if the guy will come charging out in a blaze of glory, shooting his way out or dying in the process. The cops are not obligated to wait him out. He has gone on the offensive before, and this guy was no normal citizen. He had the weapons and training to take a lot of guys down with him.

The issue of whether he posed an active threat is the issue here. The issue is not whether the cops have the legal power to kill someone who is a threat.

[McLovin]

How was the Constitution doing 80 years ago?

May 23, 1934 | Bonnie and Clyde Killed in Ambush - NYTimes.com

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by rusnak

The issue of whether he posed an active threat is the issue here. The issue is not whether the cops have the legal power to kill someone who is a threat.

Agreed, and my impression was that he no longer posed a threat. I would have been fine with a sniper shot through the window during the firefight, but waiting all day, and setting the place on fire deliberately troubles me. I'm sure there will be a lot more information forthcoming. I would imagine a lawyer will be contacting his mother to see if she'd be interested in a lawsuit.

[fintstone]

It amazes me that some of you believe it is within a policeman's authority to decide to murder an alleged criminal on the spot without trial. Makes one wonder why we have prisons or courts at all.

[rusnak]

Zoa, no doubt about the lawyer.

The taxpayers will be footing the bill for a long time, in many counties, including Torrance and Riverside.

Was Dorner a threat? Like I said, it's for a jury to decide. I think the scale tips more toward him being an active threat, not a neutralized threat. I don't think the cops are liable to Dorner's family, but they sure owe a lot of other people a lot of money.

When you re-trace what happened, you see afterwards the trail of destruction and it's sickening. I am appalled by those to say he's some kind of hero.

[MMARSH]

Originally Posted by 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?

There is so much crap spewed by people here who don't know what the hell they are talking about and really don't know the facts. Shoot first, ask Questions later....I just happen to work an area where several people listed on his manifesto live. It has not been business as usual.

I spent everyday till the final day, chasing down Dorner sightings all over the city. Every sighting got multiple unit response and several people were justifiable detained until they could be identified, guess what, no one was shot or beaten.

Why, because even with our guns drawn, they complied with every single direction given. But if your mind set is that as an innocent man you would not allow yourself to be executed and believing that you got out of your vehicle with a gun or confronted me with a gun, i can guarantee you the outcome would not be good for you.

He didn't want to surrender or plan to..... ahh screw it. nevermind...carry on.

[McLovin]

If Dorner's family were to sue and win something from the State, shouldn't the State get to offset the costs that it incurred because of Dorner?

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by rusnak

Zoa, no doubt about the lawyer.

The taxpayers will be footing the bill for a long time, in many counties, including Torrance and Riverside.

Was Dorner a threat? Like I said, it's for a jury to decide. I think the scale tips more toward him being an active threat, not a neutralized threat. I don't think the cops are liable to Dorner's family, but they sure owe a lot of other people a lot of money.

When you re-trace what happened, you see afterwards the trail of destruction and it's sickening. I am appalled by those to say he's some kind of hero.

I'm certainly glad he's dead, and I believe he would have wreaked more havoc if he could have. We'll see what the fallout is.

[rusnak]

Originally Posted by fintstone

It amazes me that some of you believe it is within a policeman's authority to decide to murder an alleged criminal on the spot without trial. Makes one wonder why we have prisons or courts at all.

If a guy is going to kill a person, you and I have the same right to take his life without a trial as a cop has. The issue as I have said over and over, is not whether you have the right to act as judge and jury (my God, how dramatic the wording is when people want to make a point), the issue is whether a person is a threat. In the case of a civilian, you'd have to pretty much wait until they were coming at you and were within seconds of ending a life. In this case, I think the cops were justifiable in assuming that the guy was not giving up, and that he had the propensity to kill for the sake of killing.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by MMARSH

There is so much crap spewed by people here who don't know what the hell they are talking about and really don't know the facts. Shoot first, ask Questions later....I just happen to work an area where several people listed on his manifesto live. It has not been business as usual.

I spent everyday till the final day, chasing down Dorner sightings all over the city. Every sighting got multiple unit response and several people were justifiable detained until they could be identified, guess what, no one was shot or beaten.

Why, because even with our guns drawn, they complied with every single direction given. But if your mind set is that as an innocent man you would not allow yourself to be executed and believing that you got out of your vehicle with a gun or confronted me with a gun, i can guarantee you the outcome would not be good for you.

He didn't want to surrender or plan to..... ahh screw it. nevermind...carry on.

It's understandable that officers were amped up about this guy. He was a menace, for sure. I hope that doesn't give them license to just execute someone any time their emotions are involved.

You sound like a LEO, so I'm inclined to tell you that you have my complete admiration and respect for the job you do, but in the end, you work for me, as it were, and I have a set of rules for you to follow. All I ask is that you make every reasonable attempt to follow them.

[fintstone]

If he has done what he is accused of...he is certainly no hero. On the other hand, how sure are we that he committed the initial crime against the Police Captain's family (before there was a $1M price tag on his head and everyone was trying to kill him)? Once the police started shooting first without warning...even an innocent man would defend himself. While I am no conspiracy theorist...it is awfully convenient that a man with a alleged whistleblower beef against the police department is such a menace that he us to be shot in sight...and then ends up burned alive with any possible evidence being destroyed...no day in court or statement to police or press.

While this man may have done everything he was accused of... What if he didn't ( many movies like this... Clint Eastwood, The Gauntlet is a good one)

That is why we have trials.

[fintstone]

MMarsh
How do you know he was guilty of killing the Captain's daughter and that he even wrote "his manifesto"? Do you get to decide who is guilty or innocent all the time...or only when a member if a policeman's family is killed?

As far as an innocent man not defending himself...the police had already proved that they would shoot at cars driving by...there was obviously going to be no attempt to capture him alive. He was given no choice in the matter.

Believe me...if you confronted me with a gun under similar circumstances...the outcome might surprise you.

[ZOA NOM]

MMarsh makes my point, I think. If Law Enforcement cannot be expected to rein in their emotions, what's the point of courts and prisons? I think, unfortunately, there are far too many in law enforcement who've forgotten who they work for. They believe they are in charge, and can do what they feel like, without regard for people's rights. It's a tough thing to expect to immerse someone in human filth all day, every day, and expect them to never be unprofessional, but they should understand their role in a free society.

[fintstone]

Shooting up pickup trucks full of old women makes leads me to believe that the rules of engagement for California LEs is much looser than those for the military in Afghanistan. If I were a 270lb black man...I would have left the state. They used to have "To Serve and Protect" on those cars.