Posted on 02/13/2013 5:12:34 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron
Care to reconsider that ludicrous claim?
Those rounds are thought to have caused Dorner to crash his truck. He was forced to bail out and flee on foot to a nearby cabin.
It was there that heavily-armed SWAT officers from the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department - including McKay and Collins - engaged the former U.S. Navy Reserve lieutenant in a running gun battle.
KCAL-TV captured terrifying footage of officers taking cover and firing into the cabin. Hundreds of rounds could be heard.
As the battle unfolded, Dorner tossed a smoke grenade and tried to escape out the back door of the structure.
After shooting McKay and Collins, other officers - armed with M4 military assault rifles and Ruger Mini 14 semiautomatic carbines, drove him back inside.
---------
So McKay was killed and Collins was wounded during the firefight, when Dorner was trying to escape. Do you SERIOUSLY wish to continue your opinion that a prolonged siege and firefight with a crazed killer trying to escape did not represent imminent danger?
Reduced to mocking a typo?
That’s sad.
Typos?
Someobody typo’d?
Yeah. I did. I blame you.
*oops8
Sorry about that.
I haven’t been able to type worth crap today.
Is it really that hard for you?
How many things can you imagine that “burners” could have been WRT that event?
Were they just cans of sterno warming their pork and beans?
He was in a cabin by himself surrounded by police. He would have run out of ammo eventually. They had him pinned down. Lethal force was not called for here.
Yeah, he was so pinned down that he killed one deputy and wounded another trying to escape. I guess you would have been happier if two or three more deputies had died while he was expending his ammo?
Sheez.
So the proper response to a siege is to kill the suspect? Screw the Constitution and the Bill of Rights just start killing? I’ll just say if you believe that the police can or should operate outside of the law then I hope you are never the subject a mistake.
Are you really this dense? Dorner had KILLED A DEPUTY at that location. Trying to ESCAPE that location. And was still firing at the cops when the CS gas was fired at the cabin.
I’ll just say if you believe that the police can or should operate outside of the law then I hope you are never the subject a mistake.
Please show where it is outside the law for the cops to use lethal force when the perp has already used lethal force on them and continues to do such. Dorner was not a helpless handcuffed man face down on the sidewalk. He was holed up and actively trying to kill more deputies at that location. Lethal force is ALWAYS justifiable in that situation.
Are you really this dense? Dorner had KILLED A DEPUTY at that location. Trying to ESCAPE that location. And was still firing at the cops when the CS gas was fired at the cabin.
I’ll just say if you believe that the police can or should operate outside of the law then I hope you are never the subject a mistake.
Please show where it is outside the law for the cops to use lethal force when the perp has already used lethal force on them and continues to do such. Dorner was not a helpless handcuffed man face down on the sidewalk. He was holed up and actively trying to kill more deputies at that location. Lethal force is ALWAYS justifiable in that situation.
Oh give me a break!
Is it really that difficult for you to understand that when we have audio of them saying ‘burn the mf out’...and ‘let’s go with the burn plan like we discussed’ and ‘we have burn’ followed by ‘we have fire’ that some folks might question if the private property was purposely torched?!
Not really. If the police believed this then why are they trying to pretend that the fire wasn’t intentional? Why not take credit for intentionally killing him if they had the law on their side? Because the understand that by law this would not have been a justifiable homicide.
Honestly, I don't care. SBSD had lethal force used against them by Dorner. They used lethal force back when he continued to shoot at them. I really don't understand the difference between roasting him and shooting him. Either way, he's dead. And he wasn't going to go alive, according to his own manifesto. You cannot reason with someone like that.
So you don’t care if government is bound by law? Also it’s important to remember that country was founded by a “manifesto”. And one of the items was the following
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
But TJ was a long haired hippie liberaltarian so what did ever know about anything...
There is no law that says cops cannot use lethal force against a perp using it against them. Please point out an actual such law if you wish to make a valid point. Not conjecture, actual law. With a link.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
So do you wish to stake the position that Dorner, having already killed a deputy at that location, and was continuing to fire at officers, did not pose a signficant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officers there?
If so, further debate is pointless, as you will have staked yourself to an utterly absurd position.
I think we’ve exchanged views on this and this will be my last post on this. If this were legal, then why aren’t the police taking full credit for this? Why didn’t the Feds take full credit for Waco?
Please post a single state law saying the cops could not use lethal force in this kind of situation. Until then, you're full of it.
That case doesn't say what you think it says.
It does not say the police may use arson. It does not say the police may use deadly force to cause or induce death. The part you didn't bold says, "he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape, if ..." and then goes on to narrow to circumstances where use of deadly force is justified. Even though SCOTUS endorses the use of deadly force, I do not see SCOTUS endorsing resort to arson.
Which would explain, in part, why the police officials are quick to deny ever having any intention to set fire to the structure.
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.