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
You posted; I’m questioning the legitimacy and trustworthiness of the police.
Police is all inclusive.
The team of cops who shot up the newspaper delivery girls as a GROUP, all agreed that guarding one of their own's houses was worth a hundred rounds or so without the need of anything so bothersome as target identification.
Both officers in the LAPD squad car decided that ram and shoot was an appropriate response to driving while being a surfer dude.
These are approved or at least encouraged, systemic organizational responses, albeit ones to a perceived group threat, not the actions of a few disturbed individuals.
You are trying to lump the acts of a few disaffected individual members and ex-members of the military in with the deliberate and considered policies of entire police agencies.
Yet you want to mollycoddle all police departments, and excoriate every military member.
I don't think I'm the only one here not buying it.
You apparently didn’t see the last two sentences:
——> Well, I’m a former serviceman... so the government says they _shouldn’t_.
——> (After all, I might be a terrorist.)
>Police is all inclusive.
What? Honestly this is worse than stating the sun will rise in another few hours, it makes no sense AND isn’t even true (if it was you, I, grandma and my toddler nephew would be included).
If you're going with the US Constitution, how can a state outlaw abortion? Does the individual state have the power and right to legalize slavery again? Does the individual state have the authority and right to interpret the US Constitution as it sees fit?
Most of the states have a separate "right to keep and bear arms" section in their own Constitution
What if the state decides to change their "right to keep and bear arms" to mandsatory confiscation?
In other words you're too intellectually lazy to look at the argument as-presented. Besides that, case-law is not indicative of correctness/substantiation... otherwise I could simply (and legitimately) cite Dread Scott and any other overturned case (that they were overturned is irrelevant, except in illustrating they were recognized, legally, as wrong) to do so.
Your philosophy elevates "case-law" above Constitutional-law (though what is refereed to as "constitutional law" right now is actually "case-law as applied to the constitution" rather than actual reasoning as applied to the actual Constitution.)
Another asinine accusation. Arguments should be based on facts and evidence, not emotions. You are emoting.
What if the people of a state say "I won't allow it" and kill those in governing offices, hanging them by the neck until dead for doing so?
And they likely could -- almost all the states have a Treason section.
If you're going with the US Constitution, how can a state outlaw abortion?
Already mentioned: the 10th Amendment.
Does the individual state have the power and right to legalize slavery again? Does the individual state have the authority and right to interpret the US Constitution as it sees fit?
What of the 13th Amendment, ah, but the 16th reinstated it...
You must know the number of people and their names to make such a claim. It certainly appears to me that you are nothing more than a gasbag.
Yet you want to mollycoddle all police departments, and excoriate every military member.
Try to keep up, grasahopper. You're either willfully ignorant or a fool.
I don't think
You're correct, you are an emoter!
WTF -- I showed you the relevant constitutional sections when I built my argument, those are facts and evidence, yet you claim I need cases to cite them as violations.
IOW -- The Constitution itself isn't enough to mean what it says, no, we need the courts and judges to filter and hand down the words to us plebeian mites of that High Law just as priests are needed to hand down the Word of God.
Emotions are not a problem, it is emotion unbound by reason -- but likewise, reason unsoftened by emotion a problem:
"Reason without feeling is at best sterile and worst morally reprehensible.
Feeling without reason is at best animalistic and at worst insanity."
I love [sarcasm] how you can dismiss all the reason presented because I dare to show some emotional connection.
I bet if I presented it in a dry and formal manner you'd dismiss it as obviously uninteresting because it lacked emotional connection.
I've been reading those things on the internet for years, but have yet to see anyone taking the lead. I don't endorse anarchy.
Already mentioned: the 10th Amendment.
Mentioned, but in which state is abortion illegal?
Does the individual state have the power and right to legalize slavery again? Does the individual state have the authority and right to interpret the US Constitution as it sees fit? A simple yes or no and short explanation will suffice.
SCOTUS never reversed or overturned that decision. Not even after the Civil War.
Just an interesting factoid you can use to impress your friends and relatives.
Indeed, you obviously endorse tyranny -- as evidenced on your long record [on just this thread] defending lawless actions by the police, imagining exceptions which do not actually exist.
Mentioned, but in which state is abortion illegal?
None -- but this is because, like you, they have bought into the lie that the Supreme Court could prohibit them.
Does the individual state have the authority and right to interpret the US Constitution as it sees fit?
It must, if it does not then it is not established by the people, via the Constitution but by those that say what the Constitution says.
IOW, if the Constitution was instituted by the general people (as virtually all of the State Constitutions claim) then it must be understandable to the general person.
Did you ever attend college? Posting a book title, chapter title, amendment, page number or the US Constitution to address questions doesn't cut it.
we need the courts and judges
They are indeed part of the judicial branch of government, are they not?
I bet
Is it legal where you live?
I wasn't aware I was writing a paper, or that you were my teacher -- apparently I wrongly suspected you wanted some sort of intelligent discussion.
Your actions look very much like the following: evoke an emotional response, denigrate the responder for that, claim some sort of superiority/victory.
> we need the courts and judges
I do not need the government to tell me what the document commissioning the government says. -- Furthermore, it's stupid to rely on the government ONLY saying "yes, I went too far" WRT itself (TSA vs. the 4th Amd?).
> They are indeed part of the judicial branch of government, are they not?
And altering the law is a function of the Legislative, is it not? -- Yet they [judicial-branch] did so for the Affordable Care Act.
> Is it legal where you live?
Which "it"?
No dummy, I don't endorse anarchy. You aren't intelligent enough to differentiate?
your long record [on just this thread] defending lawless actions by the police,
Post them. Or admit that you are a liar.
they have bought into the lie that the Supreme Court could prohibit them.
Specific examples?
Apparently I expected more from you than you are capable of giving.
I do not need the government to tell me what the document commissioning the government says.
When you say the "government", exactly what are you referring to?
And altering the law is a function of the Legislative, is it not?
Altering? The Legislative Branch is responsible for writing laws and the Judicial Branch for interpreting the laws. You stated, "I bet". Is betting/gambling legal where you live?
Just because the San Bernadino cop assumption that Dorner was there and alone turned out to be true, doesn't make the tactic of burning him out smart or constitutional.
It's a matter of rule of law. I don't expect the LAPD to change because of what's written on this site. Rule of law is not important to the liberal mind, except when it gives them what they want. I do expect that rule of law means something to the folks here on freerepublic.com.
What rule of law restricts the use of deadly force by law enforcement when they or bystanders are under attack?
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.