Replies

"I haven't seen that. I've seen people post concerns that the officers intentionally burned him alive,"

I hope they did.

"not in some firefight."

Gunfire was exchanged and officers were killed/wounded at the scene. It was a firefight sure enough. Just because they happened to roast him at the end of it doesn't mean a firefight didn't take place.

"The officers seemed determined to execute him."

Execute him? Should they simply have lined up to be shot? He started this whole thing and got what he had coming. You do realize that police officers have the right to self-defense as well? He was not executed.

"I've seen posts concerned with the rule of law, not Dornan."

Some people cry 'unconstitutional!' every time a cop unholsters his weapon. In many cases there are legitimate reasons to question what happened. This case is pretty clear cut; Dorner got what he had coming. The police have a duty to maintain public safety, and knocking off a lunatic on a killing spree fits that job description pretty well.

In this instance they had him cornered and pinned down. He wasn't going anywhere. Plenty of resources onhand to cordon off the area until he ran out of food or offed himself.

IOW... They didn't need to execute him. This was revenge and has no place in law enforcement.

Dorner needed to die. He needed to spend some time on death row and then an ignominious end by lethal injection.

The police have a duty to maintain public safety,and knocking off a lunatic on a killing spree fits that job description pretty well.

Yeah, sure maintained the sh*t out of the safety of those people they shot up in those pick up trucks that weren't even matching the description of the one dorner was driving.

I guess the big complaint I have here is that I didn't have anyone to root against. You had a vengeful killer versus a bunch of criminal gang bangers. At least pro wrastlin' has a clearly defined person you can be against.