“*IF* the reports of deliberately burning down the cabin are true, Due Process was being eliminated. And we are walking a thin line to tyranny. Those who forget the past are bound to repeat it. Obama wants a civilian army just a large and powerful as the military.”
“BUT” did Dorner have the chance to walk out once the fire started? Or did “HE” choose to commit suicide by shooting himself or burning alive? I don’t see anything tyrannical about forcing a murderer out of a building through fire.
Then every jumper off a bridge would be left to jump. This is sloppy police work at best and tyranny at worse. And since when can the government deliberately burn down private property? Regardless of the reasoning.
P.S. Welcome to FR.:)
From the 5th Amendment:
...nor deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law;...
Someone owned the building. They were deprived of property.
Given the choice of burning to death or walking out into a hail of gunfire, which would you choose?
Before you answer, remember over 70 Branch Davivians were terrified of the snipers and tanks outside and burned to death instead of stepping out through a hole in the wall (where they could). (as told by one of the survivors, Clive Doyle)
It wasn't even as if they had besieged the place for a couple of months--this was "payback" pure and simple--a lynch mob hiding behind badges.
The only reasons I can see that you don't object is that it wasn't your house, and you weren't inside.
So how do you KNOW the person inside shot anyone?
Because you saw it on TV, and they can't put anything on TV that isn't true?
Well, since the police ordered the camera-copters away from the building, how would we really know one way or the other?
He'd have walked into a hail of bullets. No way did they want him alive and talking.