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]
Yeah, he was so pinned down that he killed a deputy and wounded another trying to bolt from the cabin. The longer the siege went on, the greater the chance another deputy or two would get hurt or killed.
They had already tried that.
Should and will are worlds apart as you note.
Likely nothing will happen as no charges or complaints will even be entertained.
“They would have nuked the place from orbit to keep him off the witness stand.”
This is wwhere your paranoid delusions lead you - accusing public authorities of monstrous plans. There is no way that they could have waited the many hours necessary for the Washington approval of the orbital nuking option. Non-nuclear air strikes would be far more feasible than your crazed supposition.
Leave the LAPD alone - they’ve suffered enough!
Beats me.
It must make some difference, else why would the police feel compelled to lie?
DORNER WAS HIDING IN THAT CABIN FOR 5 DAYS.. FROM THURSDAY FEB. 7TH TO TUESDAY FEB. 12TH.. Dorner was 'walked in on' by the couple on his last day at that cabin (Tues).
He was hiding 'right under the cops noses' 300 yrds. away from their command post, for five days until the owners of the cabin showed up (The Reynolds).
I think they are lying, when they say they did not intend for the structure to catch fire.
-- But, even if the intent was to burn him out - what was the alternative? Wait until he killed a few more law officers or citizens? --
I don't know the lay of the land, but if we believe that the police were able to circumvent his attempt to escape and evade, then an alternative is to wait. The technique for preventing the target from hitting others is to stay behind cover, and the means to protect citizens is to deny them access to the area. Both of these techniques are in common use, and are the usual technique. Resorting to arson is not unheard of, but I know of no case where the police admitted to an attempted arson.
-- If "we the people" stop supporting our police forces and armed services personnel, why should they continue to put their lives on the line for us? --
Hmmm. I'd ask why the people are withholding their support. If the police and armed forces are seem as hostile to the people (by the people), then, by definition, the police and armed forces are putting their lives on the line for an entity other than "the people."
At some point, breakdown of trust becomes a problem. I'm slow to assign blame for the breakdown to "the people." "The people" are more numerous, and don't have direct control over the police or armed forces. For example, I don't blame "the people" for the fact that Obama is a lying sociopath. My mistrust of Obama is driven by his actions, not by mine.
beat me to it uncle miltie...many of these cheerleading posters get the vapors at the thought of bambam using hellfires on citizens eventually, as well as a 'kill list' which is essentially what lapd had and did...
no tears shed for the krispy kritter, but dayum, imagine if that had been a daycare center or sumthin...
But the larger point stands, lethal force was justified here, and burning the building ended the siege and the chance that other deputies could get shot.
Now they just need remidial training for the LAPD. Maybe get all officers screened for color blindness so they can tell a blue pickup from a gray one?
The police ruled Dorner a "Domestic Terrorist" a few days ago.
Check your policy, I'm nearly certain it has a acts of terrorism rider, probably right next to the acts of war rider.
Don’t like the job? Can’t follow the rules?
Find other work.
Please point out any federal, state or local law that prohibits use of deadly force by police when they are confronted by such. Dorner had already killed one deputy in the siege at that location and wounded another, and he had continued to fire at the LEOs outside. He continued to present a lethal threat to them. Lethal force was justified.
How about worrying about the rule of law and how it’s not being followed? The LE deciding to "burn him" is no different than Obumer saying "I'll go around Congress".
I doubt seriously that anyone in this administration would approve of lynching one of Holder's people.
“Not if you are LAPD..”
Correctomundo Nully!
It’s amazing to watch FReepers condemn Obumer for doing things without Congress approval or following the rule of law and also condemning other FReepers for demanding the LE follow the rule of law. It makes no sense. But then again little today does.
Hmm, last I checked, no one is shooting at Obama when he says that.
Some of the juxtapositions on this issue are getting absurd. Lethal force was justified here. The cops weren't burning out some innocent homeowner. The guy had just shot and killed a deputy and wounded another on the premises and had refused to surrender and come out.
Please point out a federal, state or local law that prohibited use of deadly force in that situation - where an armed perp had already killed one deputy, wounded another and continued to fire at officers on the scene, while not coming out after getting tear-gassed.
They've been doing that for years.
A recent/current example is Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman.
Seriously? You think the LEOs couldn’t simply hunker down behind bullet proof barricades and waited him out? They had him surrounded. Where was he going to go?
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.