[News] Ex-cop, ex-military James Dorner is waging war on the LAPD

Status
Not open for further replies.
For instance I'm not entirely sure which part of the legislation gives a parent or legal guardian the ability to set rules and restrictions (legislative), enforce compliance (executive), and, within limits, to discipline misbehavior (judicial) of another human being (their child). But I'm sure it's in there somewhere, as otherwise a parent who didn't let their child go out and play late in the evening might be guilty of something in the direction of kidnapping (heh, kid-napping...). And I understand it's only a parent, and no-one else, who has these rights regarding their children.
A parent is legal guardian of a child until they are of age, or longer/shorter as prescribed by law (for mentally disabled, for people whose parents are in jail and ask for early adulthood, etc etc). Legally, they are responsible for the well-being and adherence to laws, of the child, and as such are granted specific legal duties and permissions. You're not kidnapping someone for grounding them, as it's a disciplinary measure. You're not allowed to break both your kids' arms because they got home late, because it's excessive force.

Perhaps a clearer example would be the authority of a police officer (in most jurisdictions I believe) to place a person in temporary detention, if they feel there is sufficient cause. Now, depriving a person of their freedom of liberty violates a whole bunch of rights, even if it is done only temporarily. Yet the police can do that through proper procedure, and if the suspicion falls through, they just let you go. No need for anyone from the judicial branch of government to get involved in anything, as long as any laws aren't broken.

So, I would challenge your assertion, and believe an improved one would be something along the lines of "The moment you allow anyone outside of the Judicial Power (and possibly executive power in the case of pardons/grace/etc) to play judge against a civilian, without them being authorised to do so under the law, you're...off the rails. Period."
Well, yes; a police officer can take someone into custody, because he's allowed to by law. There's no need for someone of any of the three powers to jump in, because at that moment, he's following the law as laid down by the legislative branch and interpreted by the executive branch. That police officer is acting within the law, but he's very explicitly not saying someone is guilty, and he cannot be sentenced purely by him to anything. A short detention to ensure safety/prevent escape/etc. In judiciary systems such as Belgium or France, any other incarceration (yes, awaiting trial, etc) are decided upon only by the judge. in the US the system is somewhat different, but it's still someone else, specifically apointed for the job, looking at the case, who decides whether or not to keep someone in jail.

I agree with what you're saying, but strictly speaking, the Law can't proclaim someone judge over someone else - and certainly not judge and jury, without possibility of a higher appeal (with the exception of very specific instances such as spies and deserters in wartime).

It appeared to me (and apparently KO as well) that you meant that a police officer going rogue/using excessive force/killing someone without need/etc is, in certain cases, acceptable, as a deterrent. With which I don't agree, since any deterrence it would offer would be....what? "If you make me mad, I'll break my own rules and hurt you, but as long as you're not too bad, we'll stick to our rules"? That's ridiculous. You need to be able to deter them while staying inside the lines of the law.

Of course, in a best-case scenario, all of what I said is not applicable to this situation. I'm saying that I think it's a serious problem, under the hypothesis that a cop deliberately killed this guy.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
This man was ACTIVELY SHOOTING at cops! He dies, end of story.
The decision for him to die was made well in advance of that firefight. They didn't kill him in self defense, they premeditatively sentenced him. You can ask the people they mistakenly thought were him - once they're done picking the lead out.
 
The decision for him to die was made well in advance of that firefight. They didn't kill him in self defense, they premeditatively sentenced him. You can ask the people they mistakenly thought were him - once they're done picking the lead out.
He decided his fate when he started shooting first.

Just make him any other job holder, like if he worked for the post office. If he had a history of shooting cops first, he will get shot eventually.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
He decided his fate when he started shooting first.
You're fooling yourself if you think the LAPD was ever going to let him get before a judge. Even if by some miracle he managed to be taken alive, I'm sure he'd suffer a tragic accidental fall down some stairs onto a pile of bullets before his court date.
 
You're fooling yourself if you think the LAPD was ever going to let him get before a judge. Even if by some miracle he managed to be taken alive, I'm sure he'd suffer a tragic accidental fall down some stairs onto a pile of bullets before his court date.
He's just another delusional man that went postal.[DOUBLEPOST=1360866000][/DOUBLEPOST]
I wasn't aware it was codified into law that murdering a police officer supercedes the Constitution, huh
There is if he's FUCKING SHOOTING AT YOU!
 
There is if he's FUCKING SHOOTING AT YOU!
The news reports make it sound like the shooting had mostly stopped before the place went up in flames. So, in point of fact, we don't yet know the actual chain of events, and that makes a difference.

Determining that it was a righteous shoot should be up to the investigators.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I'm not trying to say the guy was not deserving of death. I am trying to say that it is the place of the judiciary only to hand that down. Make no mistake, law enforcement decided this man was to die at their hands before the shooting even started. And the complacency of area residents in regards to his execution at the hands of law enforcement is more than a little ironic given their stance on the death penalty.
 

BananaHands

Staff member
I am trying to say that it is the place of the judiciary only to hand that down. Make no mistake, law enforcement decided this man was to die at their hands before the shooting even started.
I think the fact that two women were shot up by the LAPD with no warning on the 8th supports this.
 

BananaHands

Staff member
Also with how many bullets were fired at this guy and how he was so badly he was burned (to the point where they need to do DNA tests) by the cabin fire, how did his drivers license survive?
 
Sixpack, I get what you're trying to say here.

However, Gas has the right of it here. There is a HUMONGOUS difference between treating someone as "armed and highly dangerous" and saying "Kill on sight."

In the one situation, you are prepared for a shootout, you are expecting one.

In the other, you are instigating it.

We can't overlook the confines of the law simply because they're inconvenient, or we don't think they should apply. Unless the rounds are ACTIVELY FLYING at you, or there is a weapon drawn or being drawn on you (or another), lethal force is not an option. Just because the dirty has killed in the past does NOT give carte blanche to overlook the force continuum for a pre-emptive strike. We're not military, we are police. We HAVE to follow the law, or else there is no point in HAVING a law.

I should LIKE to think that the poor innocents injured were the result of a highly nervous officer with a hair trigger seeing what he BELIEVED to be a threatening motion (which, if you're looking for one, ANY rapid motion's going to have you seeing a threat) and responding before verifying his target.

But I have a nasty feeling that Gas is right on that part, too.


Also, Charlie - not all LEOs take our lead from the LAPD... our last chief here was run out of town after trying to have our department emulate them, and ruffling too many feathers. We don't work like that, down here.
 
Also with how many bullets were fired at this guy and how he was so badly he was burned (to the point where they need to do DNA tests) by the cabin fire, how did his drivers license survive?
The third copy of his drivers license that they've found so far. There are so many shenanigans going on here it's not even funny. They aren't even trying anymore.
 
I'm not trying to say the guy was not deserving of death. I am trying to say that it is the place of the judiciary only to hand that down. Make no mistake, law enforcement decided this man was to die at their hands before the shooting even started. And the complacency of area residents in regards to his execution at the hands of law enforcement is more than a little ironic given their stance on the death penalty.
They did not decide to kill him before the shooting started. He was fired nearly 10 years ago.[DOUBLEPOST=1360877224][/DOUBLEPOST]
The third copy of his drivers license that they've found so far. There are so many shenanigans going on here it's not even funny. They aren't even trying anymore.
I read that they found his police credentials in one place and his DL on his person.

Also remember the Apollo 1 fire. That thing burned like a cutting torch for several minutes. The fire burned up the astronauts and their suits, but did not burn the typing paper notebooks.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
They did not decide to kill him before the shooting started. He was fired nearly 10 years ago.
I meant this specific instance of gunplay. Just because you shoot somebody weeks ago does not mean the police may shoot you on sight at every opportunity later. I think you knew what I meant, too.
 
I meant this specific instance of gunplay. Just because you shoot somebody weeks ago does not mean the police may shoot you on sight at every opportunity later. I think you knew what I meant, too.
Then how did the Park Policeman die if he was going to murder the guy in the street at the first chance?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Then how did the Park Policeman die if he was going to murder the guy in the street at the first chance?
Let's be specific, are you talking about the events of tuesday? Timeline:

_ 12:20 p.m., Tuesday, Feb. 12: Police are summoned after a man resembling Dorner steals a vehicle in the San Bernardino Mountains. The vehicle is quickly located on Highway 38. The suspect abandons the vehicle, runs into the forest and barricades himself inside a cabin.
_ 12:40 p.m., Tuesday, Feb. 12: State Fish and Wildlife wardens are involved in a shootout with the suspect. Two San Bernardino County sheriff's deputies are wounded in a second exchange of gunfire.
_ 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, Feb. 12: Police surround the cabin where the suspect is holed up and gunfire erupts before a blaze engulfs the structure and law enforcement officers wait for the fire to burn out.
_ 4:50 p.m., Tuesday, Feb. 12: A San Bernardino County sheriff's spokeswoman confirms one of the two wounded deputies has died, and the other is in surgery and expected to survive.
Are you talking about the deputies hit in the 12:40p gunfight? Because I'm talking about how 4 hours later, all of a sudden a cabin surrounded by police is suddenly on fire while police are recorded yelling "Burn it down! Get the gas!"

That's not how that's supposed to work, FYI.
 
SWAT officers surrounding the cabin were under a "constant barrage of gunfire," one source said. “He put himself in that position. There weren’t a lot of options.” Hoping to end the standoff, law enforcement authorities first lobbed "traditional" tear gas into the cabin. When that did not work, they opted to use CS gas canisters, which are known in law enforcement parlance as incendiary tear gas. These canisters have significantly more chance of starting a fire. This gas can cause humans to have burning eyes and start to feel as if they are being starved for oxygen. It is often used to drive barricaded individuals out.
 

Dave

Staff member
But they also knew that these sorts of things wouldn't work because Dorner had purchased SCUBA gear specifically to combat gas attacks.
 

Dave

Staff member
He likely bought the SCUBA to steal that boat.
Interesting thing, though. It works just as well for gas attacks. Something you learn about in the military.

Truth is, nobody really knows what it was to be used for, just what it could have been.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
SWAT officers surrounding the cabin were under a "constant barrage of gunfire," one source said. “He put himself in that position. There weren’t a lot of options.” Hoping to end the standoff, law enforcement authorities first lobbed "traditional" tear gas into the cabin. When that did not work, they opted to use CS gas canisters, which are known in law enforcement parlance as incendiary tear gas. These canisters have significantly more chance of starting a fire. This gas can cause humans to have burning eyes and start to feel as if they are being starved for oxygen. It is often used to drive barricaded individuals out.

If he was barricaded in a cabin putting out a "constant barrage of gunfire" I think he'd run out of ammo pretty quickly, assuming he was limited to what ammo he could carry on his person. This isn't a hollywood movie. Once he was driven to ground, time was on the police's side. They could have waited him out, continued lobbing tear gas once every 15 mins or so til his scuba gear went empty. Or any other of a near limitless number of things we've seen police do in armed standoffs, when they want to take the suspect alive. These guys obviously didn't.
 
If he was barricaded in a cabin putting out a "constant barrage of gunfire" I think he'd run out of ammo pretty quickly, assuming he was limited to what ammo he could carry on his person. This isn't a hollywood movie. Once he was driven to ground, time was on the police's side. They could have waited him out, continued lobbing tear gas once every 15 mins or so til his scuba gear went empty. Or any other of a near limitless number of things we've seen police do in armed standoffs, when they want to take the suspect alive. These guys obviously didn't.
Why do that when you can just pull a Waco?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
So they should just keep cops in the line of fire until he runs out of bullets, check. Their widows will be thankful.
If only there was a special team of police that used equipment such as armored vehicles specifically designed for situations such as this. It's too bad the cabin wasn't completely surrounded for 4 hours, or they might have had time to call in such a special team.
 
Now they aren't sure if they are going to pay the tipsters the 1M reward because it said "tips leading to his capture" and he wasn't captured he was killed. Oh California you funny.
 
Now they aren't sure if they are going to pay the tipsters the 1M reward because it said "tips leading to his capture" and he wasn't captured he was killed. Oh California you funny.
That will never stand up in court. They officially went there to capture him. The fact that he was killed ether through their own malicious intent or incompetence shouldn't be a disqualifying factor in the good faith of the tipsters. They'll get paid, even if this needs to go to appeal.
 

Dave

Staff member
Actually the wording said that the tips had to lead to a conviction. Same thing, but even if he'd have been captured and then suicided, they still wouldn't have gotten paid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top