The weapon of choice employed again?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think that anyone is finding the legal killing of someone as reprehensible.


All taking of human life is manslaughter.

Extrajudicial Killing is a crime.

And who is a worse criminal? A criminal, or those represtatives of us, the people, who we charge with the responsibility to enforce those laws that are constitutional? IE: No person shall be deprived of LIFE without due process of law.


This was extrajudicial activity leading to loss of human life, with wanton disregard for the safety of anyone else that might possibly be inside. It certainly is homicide and likely rises to the level of homicide that demands an investigation and possible criminal charges.

But who will prosecute it? Sadly... "The People" are represented by the District Atttorney, who will no doubt decline to be interested. So much for fair representation of the people. The US Justice Department, if it had any balls at all, would prosecute the perpetrators for deprivation of Mr. Dorners constitutional right to due process. Indiscriminate use of area weapons is not a valid police tactic.


Willie

.
 
Are the State's arrest powers in practice if not in technical nature part of due process? I'm not saying what they did was right, but that it may be a little extreme to label it extra-judicial. Excessive Force is a lot less Gray- though until we get more details it's all some level of gray.
 
But who will prosecute it? Sadly... "The People" are represented by the District Atttorney, who will no doubt decline to be interested. So much for fair representation of the people. The US Justice Department, if it had any balls at all, would prosecute the perpetrators for deprivation of Mr. Dorners constitutional right to due process. Indiscriminate use of area weapons is not a valid police tactic.
Click to expand...

Dorner's stated reason for what he did was because the system was unfair and protected the guilty. Maybe someone will escalate things further.

If the system is going to work, authority needs to respect the law.
 
Last edited:
To circle back to what agency or agencies might investigate, the California Attorney General might also do so, depending on state law. In a number of states, the state AG can investigate if "invited" to do so by one of several specifically identified persons or agencies (e.g., the governor, a judge, the local prosecutor, etc.). Some state attorneys general also have authority to investigate civil rights violations. The state AGs are not normally intertwined with local law enforcement the way local prosecutors may be.

While I have no beef with police replying with deadly force when fired upon, the issue here is not that simple. Did the police deliberately employ the incendiary gas canisters in a deliberate effort to execute Dorner? Did they allow sufficient time for the regular tear gas take effect? Were there other, reasonable alternatives? In the end, all the police actions may be justifiable but there has to be a fair investigation into the matter.
 
Are the State's arrest powers in practice if not in technical nature part of due process? I'm not saying what they did was right, but that it may be a little extreme to label it extra-judicial. Excessive Force is a lot less Gray- though until we get more details it's all some level of gray.


Lots of grey. Lots of black too.


Hypothetical conversation between two LEO's on scene who later actually took part in the activity:

Cop 1: "Well, I can say this... he's not coming outta there alive"

Cop 2: "Darn right bubba"

= Conspiracy to deny due process under color of law.


Anyone out there doubt in their heart of hearts that this sort of conversation didn't take place?

This case would be a slam dunk for any civil rights attorney willing to take it on.


Willie

.
 
All of the shouts of "Burn it down!" "Burn that mother--" etc., followed by the exchanges over the radio ("Seven burners deployed and we have a fire." etc.) add up to something of a smoking gun, as it were.

According to this CNN report S.B. County Sheriff John McMahon acknowledged that "the cabin caught fire after police shot tear gas canisters into it."

"Although the canisters included pyrotechnic tear gas, which generates heat, 'We did not intentionally burn down that cabin to get Mr. Dorner out,' McMahon said."

If their intention actually was to burn him to death, this is a really nifty bit of prevarication.
 
graphic97501 said:
Already talking about a movie or tv show with this in mind and LL COOL J
would play Dorner.

WOW!
Click to expand...

Awesome!! Id watch it, good actor choice too, he looks pretty darn close but i dunno if he can pull off the role. I think Forrest Whitaker has more experience with those characters... itll be interesting whome they choose in the end.

DASHZNT
 
Two Wallets?

I have seen several people note that Dorner's ID was found in San Diego so how could it have been found in the cabin?

The answer is simple. The ID found in San Diego was his police badge and departmental ID. I saw a news report last week (several days before the cabin incident) that showed a picture of the badge that was found. So he dumped his badge but kept his personal California Driver’s License in his wallet with him. That is the second ID that was found in the cabin.

As for the "fireproof" wallet, you would be amazed at what can survive a fire. Several years ago my landlord's Mobile Home burnt down. The fire was so hot that the aluminum siding melted. Yet the meat in his freezer was still frozen. Also the papers in his filing cabinet were intact except for charred edges. This mobile home was his office, and since all his records were still intact it was business as usual the next day out of a smaller travel trailer. By the way, this was before the widespread use of PCs so a loss of his files could have destroyed his business!
 
A pretty good monetary reason n to kill Dorner!

There was a million dollar reward on him. The person he tied up who escaped would be a pretty good candidate for the reward. But the reward was contingent on Dorner being captured and convicted. Burning him to death means no reward.

I read that on slate so who knows.
 
I have seen several people note that Dorner's ID was found in San Diego so how could it have been found in the cabin?

The answer is simple. The ID found in San Diego was his police badge and departmental ID. I saw a news report last week (several days before the cabin incident) that showed a picture of the badge that was found. So he dumped his badge but kept his personal California Driver’s License in his wallet with him. That is the second ID that was found in the cabin.
Click to expand...

Is it common for a dismissed officer to keep his ID and badge?
 
Is it common for a dismissed officer to keep his ID and badge?
Click to expand...
I think not. I believe I've read that in the LAPD, it's standard practice to give a retiring officer his badge as a keepsake -- embedded in acrylic resin and mounted, so he can't go on using it for anything but a paperweight.

And then there are all those "Turn in your badge and gun" clichés...
 
Last edited:
law Enforcement Agencies have a history of using incendiary devices to end standoffs.

In 1974 the LAPD along with a number of other agencies used incendiary devices to burn the house suspected of containing members of the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA). 5 dead 3 from gun fire and 2 burned.

In 1985 Baltimore Police dropped an explosive device on an explosive device from a helicopter on a row house occupied by members of MOVE. The device ignited a fire and destroyed several adjacent homes. Police fired over 10.000 rounds. The single survivor and decendants were awarded 1.5 million.

1993 Waco TX the BATF botched a raid/publicity stunt on the Branch Davidians. They used burning munitions/incendiary devices in their final assault. The Treasury report revealed that the fire was intentionally set by the Government.

These are three high profile events were the police knowingly used a device to burn out suspects.

My point is that Law Enforcement knows full well that a burning munition is also an incendiary device. They know that when such a device is used a major fire will result. In this case they were lucky that the forest was wet and they did not create a massive forest fire and burn down a bunch of expensive cabins owned by rich and influential people.
 
I don't know about your military mindset, P1090, but in my military experience, CDE (Collateral Damage Estimation) is huge.

Dropping munitions on a dwelling without verifying the absence of non-targets is only done in extremis. This case was not an in extremis case. All the officers had to do was pull their cordon back out of effective range from the cabin, and wait behind cover.

They were hardly going to take overwhelming, long range fire from one gunman.

What they did was not justifiable. Again, I really don't care about Dorner. I do care about precedent.
 
MLeake said:
What they did was not justifiable. Again, I really don't care about Dorner. I do care about precedent.
Click to expand...

This.

And we're miles too far down the road. And it's why so many people are extremely alarmed at, and distrusting of, the government these days. Everything from the ones of us willing to lament openly the loss of due process to the ones wearing tin foil hats looking for black helicopters.
 
Mleake, I think you hit it square on! I don't think anyone really cares about the perp. The system is what has been exploited here. Our checks and balances are completely out of whack! This, coupled with the fact the the main proponents of the 1st amendment, the press, has been largely silent on this issue, is very troubling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top