Cops were killed.

That changes EVERYTHING.

It's tradition.

Protect and serve.

What's a constitution? :confused:

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

Dorner let the Dalmatian go!

Yesterday's scoreboard:

Dorner - 1

Cops -1

Constitution - 0

Gun Dealers: +1,000,000

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

(The other two are most definitely final).

Tru dat. The Jury is still out. :)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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....

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

emphasis on the root word, "judge".

..

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.

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?

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.

How was the Constitution doing 80 years ago?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.