Should governments have a monopoly on force?

Darias · Post by **Darias** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:37 pm

This should go without saying, but please don't reply with an unsupported yes or no answer. Also please read my post before responding.

Darias · Post by **Darias** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:20 am

Okay so it is understandable that members of the LAPD have intense feelings against this guy who allegedly killed some of their coworkers.

However what happened tonight was an extrajudicial revenge killing. The police originally stated that they did not know how the fire started. And later changed their story, telling CNN reported that the house caught on fire after smoke devices were set off to force him to surrender.

However, audio indicates that the fire was intentionally set by the police. They repeatedly said, "burn the mother ------." You can hear the audio here, but be warned about the language.

Now I have no sympathy for this man, given his alleged actions, but even if he was guilty of those crimes, this is a nation of law -- not vengeance. I don't see how burning him alive was a necessary or legal way to terminate the threat or to compel him to surrender peacefully. The actions of the LAPD here are inappropriate and grotesque. It's bad enough that they nearly killed 3 people to find him. The fact that the LAPD lied about this makes me think they didn't want him to talk.

So much for due process... just words on paper that government ignores. I hope the victims of the LAPD sue them, and I hope some bad cops get fired for their gross negligence.

WinePusher · Post by **WinePusher** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:59 am

Darias wrote: Okay so it is understandable that members of the LAPD have intense feelings against this guy who allegedly killed some of their coworkers.

However what happened tonight was an extrajudicial revenge killing. The police originally stated that they did not know how the fire started. And later changed their story, telling CNN reported that the house caught on fire after smoke devices were set off to force him to surrender.

However, audio indicates that the fire was intentionally set by the police. They repeatedly said, "burn the mother ------." You can hear the audio here, but be warned about the language.

Now I have no sympathy for this man, given his alleged actions, but even if he was guilty of those crimes, this is a nation of law -- not vengeance. I don't see how burning him alive was a necessary or legal way to terminate the threat or to compel him to surrender peacefully. The actions of the LAPD here are inappropriate and grotesque. It's bad enough that they nearly killed 3 people to find him. The fact that the LAPD lied about this makes me think they didn't want him to talk.

So much for due process... just words on paper that government ignores. I hope the victims of the LAPD sue them, and I hope some bad cops get fired for their gross negligence.

Wow, are you kidding me? I live in one of the cities right next to the mountain range this psycho was hiding in, and we have all been on edge with this maniac on the loose. Also, he took two innocent people hostage and shot 2 police officers and injured one. And prior to this he killed three other people. He was a hazard the public safety, and if setting the cabin on fire was the only way to ensure that he couldn't harm any more innocent people then I have no problem with it, even though he was denied is constituional rights.

Darias · Post by **Darias** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:29 pm

WinePusher wrote:Wow, are you kidding me? I live in one of the cities right next to the mountain range this psycho was hiding in, and we have all been on edge with this maniac on the loose. Also, he took two innocent people hostage and shot 2 police officers and injured one. And prior to this he killed three other people. He was a hazard the public safety, and if setting the cabin on fire was the only way to ensure that he couldn't harm any more innocent people then I have no problem with it, even though he was denied is constituional rights.

The same reason we give criminals a right to a trial is the same reason we grant free speech to hate groups (not that you can't be law abiding and hateful simultaneously).

The "He was dangerous, so I don't care about the Constitution" excuse is getting old. You've used it before, and I don't think its valid. Martial law is also issued for "public safety" too. Any thing can be done in the name of "public safety." Shooting at civilians, destroying their property, invading 600 plus homes without a warrant, and burning someones house down to inflict a slow death upon their suspect is beyond outrageous. The "they seem to understandably be under a lot of stress" sentiment is a tired apology, and is no excuse for violating Constitutional law. Officers of the law are supposed to be men of restraint and judgement.

Smoke would have been sufficient to incapacitate him, but they clearly had the intent to kill him -- especially if they were willing to shoot up two separate vehicles nearly killing 3 people when looking for him.

But I find myself in the minority when everyone else wanted the feds to drone bomb the cabin and waterboard his charred corpse --- oops wrong house.

The behavior of the LAPD made them just as dangerous to public safety. I would have hated to be anywhere near Dorner because I wouldn't want to get shot at... by the LAPD. They clearly can't differentiate color or shape or race.

[center]

[/center]

They've lied repeatedly during this manhunt, so I have no sympathy for them either. I hope officers who pulled the trigger and nearly killed innoncents are fired. I hope the LAPD is sued, and I hope the officer who decided to kill Dorner "real slow and painful like" is also fired. Our tax dollars should not go to fund unprofessional, vengeful, hot headed, trigger happy government employees with guns and the legal authorization to use lethal force anywhere on anyone "for public saftey."