lizzie
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 28,580
- Reaction score
- 31,554
- Location
- between two worlds
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I don't think we want the police killing easily or making decisions based on emotion because it makes them judge, jury and executioner. I'm not saying the police were wrong in this instance but it doesn't look good for them to use an incendiary device to burn a suspect out because, until any of us are convicted, regardless of how bad it looks were still not guilty by law.
What it really amounts to is that it would have been better if they had shot him after he opened fire on them, and before he entered the cabin. Either way, the end result is the same, but the public would have an easier time digesting it. If someone was shooting at me, you can bet your ass I'd try my damndest to kill him.
Dorner was executed just like Koresh and the dozens of women and children with him in Waco.
I have not seen anyone anywhere, until now, suggest that police used the incendiary version of the tear gas delivery device with the intention of burning the guy to death. we have been told that it was used to drive him out with the stronger tear gas, and fire was a possibility, but even if the officers wanted to start the fire, the fire by no means required that the suspect be burned to death. He could have easily just exited the building and surrendered.
He apparently chose not to go this route, and it is likely that he shot himself instead.
Did the police kill him at all?
I really don't think so.
If your house catches fire, do you leave, or do you stay and shoot yourself?
It's not that they finally got him. Anything he did doesn't justify wrong behavior by the police force in my eyes. If someone was shooting at me I'd shoot back but I still wish for no persons death. I've seen people die up close and it's nothing like the movies it burns a hole in your soul.
It's not that they finally got him. Anything he did doesn't justify wrong behavior by the police force in my eyes. If someone was shooting at me I'd shoot back but I still wish for no persons death. I've seen people die up close and it's nothing like the movies it burns a hole in your soul.
So your view is that .... a person can murder as many people as he wants to and the police shouldn't bother that person or intefere? That seems you point.
Yes, I've seen many people die up close, and it's not fun, and I don't wish for anyone's death in specific, but I would most definitely try to kill someone who was shooting at me. Period. My life is every bit as important as anyone else's, and I will defend it to the death, if necessary.
There's nothing wrong with being passionate about your life. I just don't like it when people are so eager to kill others because most likely you're going to kill an innocent eventually, and there's coming back from that one. Shooting all the bad guys in the world isn't worth one innocent.
I didn't say it is worth one innocent, but this nutcase was not an innocent, and he was shooting at the cops. That's not only stupid and insane, it's suicidal.
I agree he was bananas though what if he DID have an innocent hostage they didn't know about in the cabin? Would their behavior have been so easily dismissed?
I figure they were certain that there wasn't a hostage, because of the timeline of the story, and the specific actions taken by Dorner.
That's not my point at all if it takes deadly force to put someone down, then that's the way it is. But if it can be averted, even with a killer, then it should be. Or do you condone death squads for certain defenses? And does that make you any better than them?
This situation was not a "death squad." You are trying to equate what happened to other bad cop/bad government actions and it doesn't work. In this instance, there was one person who likely had killed may people, was killing people to kill people - particularly cops - and had extremely long range and high penetration weapons with ranges up to a mile - and an entire forest to try to escape or do an attack from.
What were the police suppose to do? Pull everyone back at least a mile from the cabin in evry direction and let him stay there however long he liked - or alteratively try to figure an attack plan?
I have noticed all the people trying to portray the police at the scene as torturous murders who locked him in a building and set him on fire offer NO alternative of what the police should have done instead.
My only point is the procedure to subdue and detain a suspect and not to dispense instant justice on a cornered perpetrator, exist for a reason. Too many people either wanted to support him, which is wrong or justify anything the police did because it stopped him. They may have been well within guidelines. I don't know for sure. This was always a POLL with simple questions, not accusations about events that I have no first hand knowledge of.
I think you're talking about out of the country treatment of non-citizens? They probably would still permanently intern a citizen but we'll never hear about that one. Threaten the president and some guys in black suits and sunglasses will show up to your door, handcuff you and ship your ass to some island in the Artic to an underground base...lol
What at total grotesque lie and low-life scummy comparison to the horrific actions by the federal government in murdering women and children at Waco with cyanide gas versus state and local police trying to tear gas and burn out a killer into surrendering. Your message truly is sickening to compare the two as they are exactly opposite. The police did it right with Dorner.
I agree he was bananas though what if he DID have an innocent hostage they didn't know about in the cabin? Would their behavior have been so easily dismissed?
When he demands food, we send for takeout? I just hope we can get Commander Worf to drive the get-away semi.
Certain? How could they be, unless they searched the premises? They were going by what the two maids that escaped said. But what if some child had been walking out back in the snow and Dorner had snatched him up and tucked him in the back room?
My only point is the procedure to subdue and detain a suspect and not to dispense instant justice on a cornered perpetrator, exist for a reason. Too many people either wanted to support him, which is wrong or justify anything the police did because it stopped him. They may have been well within guidelines. I don't know for sure. This was always a POLL with simple questions, not accusations about events that I have no first hand knowledge of.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?