Posted on 02/13/2013 5:12:34 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- There was no question. The man standing before Rick Heltebrake on a rural mountain road was Christopher Dorner. Clad in camouflage from head to toe and wearing a bulletproof vest packed with ammunition, the most wanted man in America over the last week was just a few feet away, having emerged from a grove of trees holding a large, assault-style rifle.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Really.
Basically, Dorner in the cabin represented a clear danger to the LEOs outside.
What difference does it make shooting him or roasting him to end the siege - in which one deputy had already been killed and another wounded?
Your hair-splitting on the means of lethal force is ludicrous. This was clearly a situation where lethal force was justified. You just don't like the form of it.
There was never any question that the burn was deliberate, and that the intention was that Dorner not survive to testify.
I don’t see what your question could be.
That's your opinion. Obviously, the police don't share it, because the police rarely resort to arson to obtain an end to a stand off, and when the police do resort to arson, they deny any intention to perpetrate arson.
I don't see a problem even if the police deliberately resorted to arson. Dorner is no less dead shot than burned. And he had not come out after a firefight, tear gas and having an armored vehicle knock down walls. He had already killed one deputy. Yet all some can do is caterwaul about him getting roasted.
Deputy appeared to say “Burn it down”
“See. See. It’s proof they meant to burn it down. The cops said it”
Sheriff: We did not intentionally burn down the structure
“You can’t believe anything the cops say”.
Lol..now I am really confused because I thought that was the whole purpose of these arguments since Tuesday...did they or didn’t they torch private property on purpose,deny due process and/or intentionally kill in an act of vengeance?
I still don’t know for sure, but I have strong suspicions now that those elements were at play. My question was directed at truly finding out if the term ‘burners’ or ‘burn him out’ really is ‘swat slang’ for tear gas. I have heard various opinions.
Bingo. Bottom line. Good post.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that until there is a court decree, the police are not supposed to assume the role of executioner.
I don't expect you to see the police assuming the role of executioner as a problem, and it's not my intention to persuade you to change your point of view.
Uh, yeah, sure.
Please point out a law that prohibited the use of deadly force in this situation, when the perp had already used deadly force on the officers and continued to shoot at them.
So your claim that he was executed is ludicrous. Someone who is executed generally does not have the ability to fire back.
So are assault newspapers. Try proofreading prior to posting. It improves your chances of conveying your message.
“I don’t see a problem even if the police deliberately resorted to arson.”
Well, it may very well be against the law for them to have done that, but I guess you are saying you don’t care if the police broke the law.
“Dorner is no less dead shot than burned.”
But you have no problem if he was summarily executed by a police force acting out of revenge, if that is the case? So police now get to be the judge, jury and executioner in our society?
” And he had not come out after a firefight, tear gas and having an armored vehicle knock down walls.”
It is entirely possible that Dorner was already gravely wounded when the cabin was torched. There were blood splatters on the inside walls reported on police scanners. How does the man walk out if he is laying in a pool of his own blood, gravely wounded?
“He had already killed one deputy. Yet all some can do is caterwaul about him getting roasted.”
We know he was a murderer, but the police in this country do not get to determine guilt, hand down sentences or exact revenge. We have to defend due process in this country, even when in doing so, our sense of divine or righteous justice is not served. If we cannot summon the moral courage to question authority in instances like this, then we will soon live in utter tyranny.
Of course resort to deadly force can be justified. That is, there is no per se prohibition on the use of deadly force. The laws that pertain to deadly force describe the circumstances that justify its use. Outside of warfare, I know of no law, either statutory, common law decision, or restatement, that justifies government resort to arson as the means of deadly force.
Really.
Please show laws that proscribe the manner of deadly force (gun, nightstick, etc.)
You are raising an absurd standard.
“...... He was not disarmed, and continued to fire at officers.”
That is just not true DB. Dorner had not fired at officers from the house in over an hour. They could not even find him in the house,so how was he shooting up until the end? That part of your facts are not in evidence at this point.
It was a violent siege situation. The cops were justified in using deadly force to end it. It is truly bizzare to describe burning out a killer gunman (who can still shoot back) as a summary execution. Usually the targets of executions are unable to fight back.
It is entirely possible that Dorner was already gravely wounded when the cabin was torched. There were blood splatters on the inside walls reported on police scanners. How does the man walk out if he is laying in a pool of his own blood, gravely wounded?
Oh, cry me a river. If that was the situation, it was of his own making.
I am assuming that you know that a CS canister is an incendiary device.
OK, I thought I had read that the firefight had gone on for some time.
Now, how do the officers outside figure out he is no longer a threat without endangering themselves? The guy had been laying low in a nearby condo for days, so he was used to trying to wait cops out. If they approached the house, he could start shooting.
What you demand basically does not fit the tactical situation.
Substitute "killed without a court decree" then. One justification for use of deadly force is that your own life is at imminent risk (more technically, that there is reasonable fear of imminent serious injury or death).
The case that you cited was that deadly force can be used to prevent escape. My contention is that resort to arson was had, in order to kill Dorner. The police deny both. They deny an intention to set fire to the structure, and they deny an intention to kill Dorner. Neither of those denials is credible. However, you are arguing that both of those action are legal and justified. IOW, there is more than one argument going on here. Not even the police are adopting your point of view.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.