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
Just like you aren't intelligent enough to discuss constitutional matters; moronic peas in a pod are we.
> your long record [on just this thread] defending lawless actions by the police,
>
Post them. Or admit that you are a liar.
Here you say that firing at the police invalidates due process... unqualified and unconcerned with the mere fact that citizens can fire back if the police unlawfully fire first.
Here you would prohibit a citizen, or group of them (ie militia) from fighting for the constitution. (I explicitly stated that unlawful actions are not protected "police action" you said that they would be "justified" returning fire -- justified means that they are within their rights.)
Here you explicitly state that trespass conjoined with unwarranted searches would make someone using force a lawbreaker, though the officer EXPLICITLY was acting without any legitimate authority.
(There's a few more pieces from you that are circumstantial, but I'll limit it to obvious cases.)
>> they have bought into the lie that the Supreme Court could prohibit them.
>
>Specific examples?
...seriously? Roe v. Wade? Have you even read it?
"Penumbras and emanations" are the equivalent of mental masturbation -- "we say it is, so it is"/"because... F--ck You!" on the part of the court -- it's so horrid a piece of "reasoning" it's never been used sense... though I thought Robert's justification of ObamaCare quite close.
I've been trying, but you keep running away.
Here you say that firing at the police invalidates due process
What does this post mean to you?
The cops involved should be fired and be held criminally and financially responsible, IMO. 236 posted on Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:43:33 PM by Alaska Wolf
Really, are you drunk, stoned or just mentally confused?
Ah, more insults. Keep them coming, by all means.
>>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?
All branches: Executive, Legislative, & Judicial. -- They do not define the Constitution; we, the people, do.
It is by the Constitution that we commissioned them, they do not dictate to us the terms of that commissioning.
Again: this is the nature of authority, the one who sends is of a higher authority than the one who is sent.
>> 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.
While technically correct it is worth saying that the current judicial "interpreting" is not interpreting ("to perform or render"/"to explain something") but distorting to the point of redefining.
You stated, "I bet". Is betting/gambling legal where you live?
*shrug* ... I rather doubt using an expression/idiom of the English language is legally actionable.
It was just a simple question. Some states have legal gaming forms and others don't. Some states have restrictive gun laws and some like mine require no permits.
What does this post mean to you?
The cops involved should be fired and be held criminally and financially responsible, IMO. 236 posted on Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:43:33 PM by Alaska Wolf
Only that you don't justify their action in that particular instance; I gave you another incident and you justified, unlawful search & trespass.
>>you aren't intelligent enough to discuss constitutional matter
>
>I've been trying, but you keep running away.
I've not: you've been moving goalposts. -- I gave you the lawful justification my mother could have used to drive off the officer and you want case law.
Precedent *spit* -- is nothing more than the Judiciary playing the children's game 'telephone' with your legally recognized rights. Do you want proof? Here.
Summary:
The IN State supreme court declared that the State no longer recognized the right to resist unlawful police intrusion. (top of pg. 6)
Despite the state constitution's guarantee of security from unwarranted search & sieziure and bearing arms in one's own defense despite being unable to alter the constitution -- that in turn is a violation of federal law (conspiracy against rights) OR, if they are not overturning the State's Constitutional guarantee, they are rejecting the supremacy of the US Constitution, which a State judge is bound by.
I'm currently visiting family abroad, I don't really gamble; neither do gaming laws much interest me except insofar as they might be contrary the constitution of the issuing authority (again, I've not had reason to investigate gaming law).
What relevance does it have?
> What does this post mean to you?
>
>> The cops involved should be fired and be held criminally and financially responsible, IMO. 236 posted on Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:43:33 PM by Alaska Wolf
Only that you didn’t support the police in that particular unlawful action.
That's correct, a particular instance. Unlike you criminal apologists that find the police at fault in every instance.
I gave you the lawful justification my mother could have used to drive off the officer
You go ahead and shoot at a police officer, neighbor kid, delivery person, standing on or crossing your property, and see what happens to you.
States individually do have the authority to limit, regulate, control and restrict certain things.
The Indiana supreme reheard that case, and didn't back down. So, the Indiana legislature AGAIN passed a statute that recognized the right of the people to resist unlawful force in home entry, no matter who is exerting it. The Indiana Supreme court did not get the last word on that principle, although it endeavored mightily to do so; and can't be trusted to follow the law, in general, based on the original decision with completely overlooked the existing statutory framework.
I told you I'm a philosopher, I've made it clear I'm looking at the overall not a particular instance. How does that then make me a "criminal apologist", especially given that I've consistently been using Constitutions as my basis for reasoning?
I'm interested in the particulars of this instance, but the underlying philosophies present.
> I gave you the lawful justification my mother could have used to drive off the officer
>
> You go ahead and shoot at a police officer, neighbor kid, delivery person, standing on or crossing your property, and see what happens to you.
And you called me unbalanced!?
Where did I give any indication of shooting someone who wasn't breaking the law?
IMO, the IN Supreme court should have been tried for felonies for that turd.
The legislature has the power of impeachment and removal, and should have exercised it. Even when the oversight was pointed out, the Indiana Supreme Court was defiant against the statutory law.
"Breaking the law" doesn't give you the right to shoot someone.
I've made it clear I'm looking at the overall not a particular instance.
In regards to all the criminal apologists, I am too.
Break into the wrong house and you will get ventilated.
Point a gun at me and expect the same.
Hmmmmmmm
What is your point Wolf? Use of force was necessary, I think we are all in agreement on that. Use of excessive force is the issue. There is a difference. Dude shot himself anyway, at least that’s the official line. There was no need to burn down the dwelling. Once they heard the single gunshot they should have realized what had happened. A robot could have confirmed.
Have you served in the military? If you did you will know that even in combat there is such a thing as a Rule of Armed Conflict. This covers excessive and unnecessary force against people who are trying to kill you. This is why US troops don’t shoot pilots after they bail out. They are no longer a threat. Once they land and begin to evade capture and shoot at you then gloves are off. Based on all your comments it seems like you think the cops are beyond these rules.
I don’t get your arguments. Please elaborate.
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.