Posted on 02/14/2013 6:21:43 AM PST by KeyLargo
Edited on 02/14/2013 9:25:10 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Police in Christopher Dorner standoff launched incendiary tear gas into cabin
By CHUCK BENNETT and DAVID K. LI From Post Wires Last Updated: 6:14 AM, February 14, 2013
Murderous ex-cop Christopher Jordan Dorner wanted to go out in a blaze of glory — and the sheriff’s deputies who surrounded his California mountain hideout provided the flames.
The San Bernardino County cops torched the wooden cabin with highly flammable “incendiary tear gas” as Dorner took refuge Tuesday, apparently burning him to a crisp.
“Burn this mf--er!” one officer shouted as they had Dorner — who had earlier killed a deputy and seriously wounded another — pinned down in the cabin, according to police radio transmissions.
Amid sounds of gunfire, voices can be head shouting, “Burn it down!” and “Shoot the gas!”
Excerpt, read more at nypost
Simple, Dial 911 and report it. Why walk outside when there may be an armed fugitive waiting to open fire on the cop?
Do the names McVeigh, Hassan and Manning mean anything to you?
>> there are times when a citizen’s firing on a police officer is justified.
>
> List them.
1 — Warrantless searches.
2 — No knock raids.
3 — To protect your fellow citizen / prevent murder or kidnapping. (This ties to #4.)
4 — Any enforcement [or attempted enforcement] of a ‘law’/statute/ordinance/rule/regulation which is contraconstitutional.
*Could* be justifying.
> Was Dorner’s firing on police justified?
Well now, a jury should have decided that, no? — and now they never will.
Not the question asked. Let me reiterate:
Imagine you're at home and see a police officer on your property, in your drive way peering into your vehicle. You exit the home and approach asking what he's doing, he tells you it's none of your business, and to go back inside. You tell him that he's on your property and you want to know his business there. He persists in intimidation, placing his hand on his firearm and telling you to get inside.
The above happened to my own mother. No explanation, no warrant. Departing from the historic, let's enter the hypothetical: Would she be a lawbreaker for (a) shooting him then and there, or (b) threatening him with force if he refused to leave?
I would like straight answers for both A and B.
I’m sure you will get a ridiculous answer.
-Alaska Wolf is in a deep sleep.
-Someone bust down his door
-No one say anything (this is typical behavior for cops on raids)
-What is Mr Wolfs response?
Call 911 or grab his gun and repel invaders?
The cops don’t announce that they are cops because this gives the bad guys a heads up to shoot at them.
What would be so hard about cornering the perps outside and using the same force of numbers?
I’m guessing it’s not so cool taking some one down outside as it is breaking down a door and running in with all that tactical gear.
They could have waited this guy out.
Your understanding of justified is severely lacking.
If you shoot at any law enforcement officer in those instances, you will get justified return fire.
>>Well, I’m a former serviceman... so the government says they _shouldn’t_. (After all, I might be a terrorist.)
>
>Do the names McVeigh, Hassan and Manning mean anything to you?
McVeigh — Interesting case: death sentence carried out surprisingly quickly, early reports of middle-eastern [?] man scrubbed.
Hassan — Interesting case: the military refusing to treat him as a spy and executing him for that crime, though IIUC his actions warrant it.
Manning — Interesting case: leaked information /after/ becoming concerned about the possibility of illegal orders and being summarily dismissed from those concerns.
The first and third rather seem to indicate there’s more to the story than is in the common knowledge, the second indicates the possibility of something odd in the military itself.
I gave you a straight and honest answer. It would be foolish to walk outside in that instance as I explained.
Would she be a lawbreaker for (a) shooting him then and there, or (b) threatening him with force if he refused to leave?
Yes to both a and b.
So then you say that firing on officials acting contrary to the constitution that makes them official is unjustified? Does that mean that lawmen breaking the law is lawful?
Why don't you address me directly, coward? Are you a Dorner relative or just a criminal apologist?
Hassan’s case was ruled work place violence. Then there is the beard thing. Last time I checked being in military prison is just like being on active duty. You still have to maintain military grooming standards.
Alsska Wolf is seriously confused.
Give me an example of your definition of "acting contrary to the constitution" and what lawful justification you would have in firing at LEOs. The question is, did Dorner have justification for firing at LEOs?
Does that mean that lawmen breaking the law is lawful?
It isn't lawful to break the law. However, emergency responders and LEOs do have authorization to do certain things that the general population would be arrested for doing. Does that mean that lawmen breaking the law is lawful?
You would be incorrect. The State of New Mexico says this in its Constitution:
Art II, Sec. 4. [Inherent rights.]You see, the warrant is the legal permission/formality authorizing the police to enter your property (without it they are merely trespassers) -- the scenario laid out is one free of any such warrant [S10]. Furthermore, the 'police' rooting around your possessions in no way invalidate your right to protect those possessions [S4]; furthermore, any law trying to disarm you [or restrict your use of arms] to secure your property are null and void [S6].
All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness.
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
Art II, Sec. 10. [Searches and seizures.]
The people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place, or seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing the place to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized, nor without a written showing of probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.
So, you see, there are multiple reasons that someone in the situation my mother was in would be lawfully justified in driving the police-officer off (possibly including deadly force). So, being lawfully justified, would be no lawbreaker.
I disagree w/ that ruling. He should be tried as a spy and as a traitor IMO, there's certainly justification for it.
Many former military personnel are police officers.
Are you a member of the LAPD or just a troll?
Show me the cases in law supporting your contention.
So, you see, there are multiple reasons that someone in the situation my mother was in would be lawfully justified in driving the police-officer off (possibly including deadly force). So, being lawfully justified, would be no lawbreaker.
Then why didn't she come out of the house firing, or better yet shooting discreetly from inside the house
Neither, why are you a criminal apologist?
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.