The weapon of choice employed again?

Status
Not open for further replies.
manta49 said:
Why would the police risk their lives trying to take him alive.
Click to expand...
Why? Because our officers are sworn to uphold our Constitution and our Constitution says that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and that he was entitled to trial by a jury of his peers.

The reports aren't in yet as to how the fire started, but there are perfectly good, legal reasons for simply waiting him out. FWIW, coming from a non-LEO, had it been my call, first move would have been to shut off his water supply.
 
If he walked near a window with his weapon and a sniper put a .308 in his head would you feel any differently? That certainly would have been justified as he had shown himself to be a direct threat to the officers on the scene. Don't get me wrong, I am not real comfortable with burning a building down like that, but when I asked myself the above question it did make me thing some.

I came to the conclusion I am not real thrilled with how the situation was handled, but I understand why it went down that way. The policy and procedure should probably be changed...if there is one in place.
 
overhead, I sure would feel differently. Only him in danger, target clearly identified. I'd still be asking some questions about whether they attempted negotiations. We don't even know if the body is his at this point.
 
Why? Because our officers are sworn to uphold our Constitution and our Constitution says that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and that he was entitled to trial by a jury of his peers.
Click to expand...

Taking people to trail isn't always possible. As for being deprived of life all my sympathy will be going to the people he murdered and their friends and families and 0 to him.
 
I understand that folks don't always get to trial, and I have the utmost sympathy for the families of those whom he killed. Nonetheless, the officers (presumably) took an oath to uphold the law, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
 
overhead, I sure would feel differently. Only him in danger, target clearly identified. I'd still be asking some questions about whether they attempted negotiations. We don't even know if the body is his at this point.
Click to expand...

I don't know what happened, but my understanding is he came out, popped smoke, fired at the officers and then was forced back inside when they returned fire. They knew he was in there, I don't know if they knew he was alone. Like I said, I have mixed feelings about this. I am usually really nervous about government use of power, especially when it results in the death of a citizen. There is part of me that believes one sort of throws their natural rights out the window when one starts shooting at police officers. Yeah, I know, the rights never go away, but I don't expect to be offered quarter when I am shooting at people.

When one factors in the shooting of the other innocent folks just for driving pick up trucks it does not look good for the LAPD.
 
When one factors in the shooting of the other innocent folks just for driving pick up trucks it does not look good for the LAPD
Click to expand...

That should read "When one factors in the shooting of the other innocent folks just for driving pick up trucks it does not look good for the San Bernadino County Sheriff's Department"
LAPD was not the agency that ended the situation.
 
That should read "When one factors in the shooting of the other innocent folks just for driving pick up trucks it does not look good for the San Bernadino County Sheriff's Department"
LAPD was not the agency that ended the situation.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I assumed the LA Times had this story correct when they said the LAPD shot at this guy on his way to surf. Maybe I should know better then to trust the media.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/09/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210

Again, I also read that the LAPD swat team was flown in and was in charge of the scene. But, I got that from the media as well so it certainly could be completely incorrect.

***Edit*** sorry, now I am confusing myself. I believe it was the newspaper delivery ladies the LAPD shot. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/lapd-will-provide-new-truck.html
 
I am not trying to re-direct this thread, but how different would it have been had they used a drone? C4? A Javelin? Dropped a mortar? It seems that the only goal here was to kill him. He could have been contemplating surrender. Heck, who knows, maybe he did and found a fire blocking his path. I think that, when police officers start making decisions for destruction versus enforcing the laws, we open Pandora's Box. (My apologies for my finding a lack of a better term there)

The major thing to remember here, they had nearly every tactical advantage. They could easily have starved him out. Look at what our military did with just speakers and Van Halen music! Granted, I don't know of all the fact here. I doubt we ever will with the way the lines have been drawn recently. This just smacks of a revenge killing to me... A torturous one at that.
 
I believe it was the newspaper delivery ladies the LAPD shot.
Click to expand...

So, question. If I'm driving along and a cop starts randomly shooting at my vehicle, am I legally allowed to fire back? I'm sure some other cops would not take kindly to me on arriving at the scene, but would it be within my rights?

Of course, who would ever believe a civilian saying that a cop shot at them first?
 
I don't have any idea on that one LEGALLY. Inteliigently I'd fall on my ass, flip on my face and hold my empty hands as high as I could with the fingers spread as wide as I can get them. In a car, stomp the brakes, duck under the dash, and hold both hands out the window. When I got home, I'd change my shorts. And call a lawyer. It's real hard to collect on a civil suit when you're dead.
 
If he walked near a window with his weapon and a sniper put a .308 in his head would you feel any differently? That certainly would have been justified as he had shown himself to be a direct threat to the officers on the scene.



Actually... without any hostages present, he was not a threat to anyone who did not willingly engage him. The on scene officers have the option to take cover, and wait. There was no hurry.

Me thinks the FBI HRT would be sitting there eating sandwiches right now and playing music (Unless they happened to bring Lon Horiuchi along)



Willie

.
 
So, question. If I'm driving along and a cop starts randomly shooting at my vehicle, am I legally allowed to fire back? I'm sure some other cops would not take kindly to me on arriving at the scene, but would it be within my rights?

Of course, who would ever believe a civilian saying that a cop shot at them first?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I do not recall someone shooting at the police with it ending well for that person. I would assume one always has a right to defend their lives when attacked.
 
Look at what our military did with just speakers and Van Halen music!
Click to expand...
Was it David Lee Roth Van Halen or Sammy Hagar Van Halen. Many factors could hinge upon that distinction. ;)

The LAPD has a lot to answer for here. They've inflicted collateral damage on uninvolved civilians in their haste, and now they've burned down a cabin without being sure the suspect didn't have hostages.

Then there are, as others have pointed out, due process considerations in their tactics. The whole thing has echoes of Waco.
 
Aparently,when the cops go after a cop killer, all aspects of "due process"get left by the wayside, just as when the gun grabbers go after your gun rights.
 
Actually... without any hostages present, he was not a threat to anyone who did not willingly engage him. The on scene officers have the option to take cover, and wait. There was no hurry.

Me thinks the FBI HRT would be sitting there eating sandwiches right now and playing music (Unless they happened to bring Lon Horiuchi along)



Willie
Click to expand...

Hi Willie. My understanding, from reading the always questionable media reports is that he was shooting at the police most of the time. Again, no idea if that is true or not. I am not saying they were justified, I am willing to say I will give them the benefit of the doubt until I can read more of the "facts". If we assume they should have set up a perimeter and waited we would also have to assume that perimeter would have to be out of rifle range. If this crazy fellow was shooting at them with a 5.56 how far away would they need to be? I would not feel safe within 1000+ meters without cover myself. In that terrain (which I assume to be wooded mountains) how many officers would it take to set up a secure perimeter? I have no idea as I really know little about running this type of operation. Lets assume they backed off and this guy some how managed to get away. First, they look like fools and second they endanger more citizens by allowing him to get away (and may endanger other officers which I assume to be a large motivator for police).

Did they have some way to verify he was alone (clear view into the cabin)? I have no idea. I don't know if they made the right decision or not. I would like more info. before throwing the police under the bus.
 
A story I read earlier today said the "burners" officers referred to is slang for CS gas canisters. Can't find that story right now. The LA Times is reporting police first fired in other gas and then the CS gas canisters which apparently have a fairly significant chance of starting a fire. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...-highly-incendiary-hot-gas-used-on-cabin.html. So, we shouldn't speculate that police used a flamethrower unless there is actual proof.

Still, I have to agree with those who believe police acted hastily and with malice when they decided to send in the gas canisters
 
Was it David Lee Roth Van Halen or Sammy Hagar Van Halen. Many factors could hinge upon that distinction.
Click to expand...
No, the Gary Cherone Van Halen, which qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment.

All humor aside, they could have borrowed a remote control armored vehicle to deliver a phone, like the one used at Ruby Ridge. They forgot they were cops, and acted like military. This was destined to end badly, and it did, no winners, only losers. The public's trust in LEOs is irreparably damaged from the actions of several frightened men.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top