Posted on 02/13/2013 5:12:34 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron
I think the cops are not owning up to deliberately burning the building to avoid PR problems, not legal ones.
One deputy had already been killed. So the perp was already a known killer.
He refused to surrender. He could have picked off another officer in the siege.
Best to end it, since he had said in his manifesto that he would not be taken alive anyway. No point in giving him the chance to take another cop with him.
I think you meant "prescribe," which is to list what is allowed. "Proscribe" is a prohibition. Not meaning to nitpick or attempt to put you in a bad light. Maybe you just made a typo, but mixing "prescribe" and "proscribe" is not uncommon.
As far as means of deadly force that are forbidden, I submit the eighth amendment. I submit that "burning" is a form of cruel and unusual punishment, under US law. Plus, burning is a fairly slow way to disable an attacker, and unless trapped in a building, is an unreliable way to prevent escape. Firearms, bow and arrow, spear, sword, hammer, axe, baseball bat, and other devices deliver more immediate results.
I think the burden is on the police, if they do admit resorting to arson, to justify that resort.
Those two categories are not mutually exclusive. I don't think there is any risk of legal action against the police, even if what they did was unconstitutional, imooral, etc. (not saying it was, just saying), because that too carries PR issues.
-- One deputy had already been killed. So the perp was already a known killer. --
Very few known killers are subjected to arson by cop.
Yeah, they usually get shot to death first.
Punishment is meted out against someone who already is in custody of the state. Dorner wasn't at the time, and was violently resisting efforts to take him into custody. IMO the 8th does not apply. But at least you are making a rational effort to make a legal argument, which is more than I can say for some posters on this thread.
Adopting your point of view results in finding that it is not unreasonable to equip the police with flamethrowers, and no violation of the 8th amendment could occur as long as use of the flamethrower was reserved for people not in custody. No constitutional violation of the 8th is possible, says you, until a person is in custody. Burning them is not punishment.
Or, if not flamethrower, just allow them to use gasoline and matches to burn houses that contain a person know to have committed a capital offense. It is quicker and cheaper process, that's for sure.
“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.”
Oh I don’t know...by waiting him out for maybe more than an hour without resorting to torching private property? I have seen the Dallas Swat do it time and time again. They wait sometimes for days! Many times when they finally go in, the suspect is dead from previous wounds or self inflicted ones.
Also, the police were already approaching the house, in an armored vehicle tearing down walls and inserting incendiary devices. I am sure they had normal fears, but they had plenty of protection at that point in time.
“What you demand basically does not fit the tactical situation.”
What I ‘demand’ is that our police act within the boundary of our laws and constitution at all times. That is all. If that is too hard a bar to meet, they have no business in that profession.
Second of all, a flamethrower is not a practical tactical weapon in such a situation. Flamethrower operators in WWII generally had very short lifespans.
I just don't see the problem of lethal force by arson versus lethal force by firearm here. They obviously had failed to shoot their way to ending the siege, as they couldn't see the perp. They hadn't been able to smoke him out with 'conventional' tear gas. Burning the cabin down ended the siege with no further loss of life to the LEOs on the scene.
I guess we'll just have to disagree as to whether it is a reasonable tactic. It certainly was viable.
Now, how many times did Dallas SWAT wait days when a cop involved in the siege had been shot and killed by the perp, there on the scene. Cops are a lot more patient when they have not been shot at by the perp, such as in a typical hostage situation.
What I ‘demand’ is that our police act within the boundary of our laws and constitution at all times. That is all.
And I disagree that the cops failed in that regard here.
Not at the time, no I did not realize that or if I did, I forgot it...lol.
Why should it be any different of a response when a cop is murdered or joe blow citizen? Are cops more important than just us peons? Does the fact that a cop was murdered justify extra judicial actions? That is absurd.
I understand the human reaction that a cop might have in this circumstance, but they are suppose to be well trained and disciplined in the rules of law and procedures.
It's more that when the perp shoots at the cops, he shows he is a clear danger to them, whereas if he, say, shot his friend while playing poker and is now holding the wife hostage, he has not shown a danger to the cops.
That's just basic tactics. You treat someone shooting at you differently.
You had repeated that enough times that I figured you already knew it, and I didn't have to repeat it. I think we have approximately the same understanding of the situation, although I disagree with some of the premises you state as fact. No matter, those factual disagreements are irrelevant to the question of whether or not arson by cop is a legal form of self defense or protection of the public. Ultimately, that's a question for the public, and if arson by cop becomes more common, I think the public will cause its legislators and courts to weigh in on the propriety.
-- I just don't see the problem of lethal force by arson ... --
Yes, I see that.
-- I guess we'll just have to disagree as to whether it is a reasonable tactic. It certainly was viable. --
It is very effective when the goal is to kill the occupants. Very few homes have fire-safe rooms / bunkers. I suspect arson is probably more deadly than bombing.
I see your point, but the cops job is to protect and serve the community and our laws. My point being, that barricaded suspects are surrounded by police forces all the time. They clear the area, rendering the public at large safe and the suspect temporarily neutralized. Then other tactics are used to either establish contact with suspect or wait him out. I don’t see where any of that was done here for whatever reason. I also have heard pretty convincing evidence that they meant to torch the suspect and kill him from the very beginning. That is just not ok if that is the case. At least though we are discussing the issues now in a reasoned way. The framers would be proud.
It was an accidental cop murder like at Waco.
Well, at least the Rambos at the LAPD can stop filling old ladies’ trucks with bullets and crashing into white guys driving trucks.
Goes to show what we would all suffer if America entered into civil war and why authorities would lose that war via terrorizing the public in their murderous and undisciplibed rampage born in shear terror of their enemies.
Always best to have a trial by jury before the hangin’. : )
IOW, they're lying. Right?
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.