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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Frank

Frank

Dave said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yup, those rewards are always worded like that.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

sixpackshaker, if there was any other department in the country, I wouldn't be so critically... but this is the LAPD. They do this stuff all the time. No other city short of Chicago has a more corrupt police force.
 
TommiR

TommiR

Bubble181 said:
A parent is legal guardian of a child until they are of age, or longer/shorter as prescribed by law
[...]
Well, yes; a police officer can take someone into custody, because he's allowed to by law.
Click to expand...
I think we're mostly in agreement, in the sense that the law can give authorisation for people to have extraordinary rights over other people (such as parents vs children, police vs civilians). To note, I feel all that to be quite right and just. However, if we go by the idea that law is something brought into being by mutual agreement, and is separate from morality, then we will need to accept that someday the law might grant greater powers to others over ourselves than we might feel is proper. Such as the right of a Head of State to order lethal force to be used against aiders and abetters of separatist guerillas who are allied with an external enemy with whom the nation is currently at war (I'm talking about Saddam gassing the Kurds).

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).
Click to expand...
I think it is unlikely to fully happen, turning police officers into Judge Dredd-type figures or something. But laws can and do change, and I'm not sure it is entirely accurate to say that it can't happen. At least the current legislative apparatus has nothing procedural to prevent it from happening, and I don't see anything conceptually that would make it have a probability of even close to zero. I understand that a constitution-type document usually outlines how such things are to be arranged, and if you can change that, then it is only a question of how far you can go.

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.
Click to expand...
Nah, as I said earlier, deliberately setting fire to the cabin to kill this guy would have been neither right nor legal. I doubt anyone is claiming that is the way this was supposed to go, though opinions may differ on exactly how bad it is. Personally, as I think I mentioned, I'm not shedding too many tears if it actually went down that way, and speculate on whether some good might actually have come out of it. And I imagine the primary deterrent in this case would be directed against going after cops and their families, which I think is far less ridiculous than you make it sound.
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

Sometimes I seriously wonder if people know what the word deterrent means...

For someone even considering this sort of situation, there is no deterrent that would have prevented this. It's the same reason that the death penalty is not a deterrent. When people are so far gone that they are considering something like this, ramifications are the last thing on their mind. There's no way this guy planned on living through this.
 
TommiR

TommiR

So no-one wanting to influence law enforcement officers would ever stoop so low as to threaten them or their families?

edit: The deterrence being, if you go after cops or their families, then the consequences for you is not a matter of what can be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

tegid said:
Seriously? Is also O_Charon living in LeQuack's dreams, or did you just ignore his post?
Click to expand...
His post had nothing to do with LAPD was going to murder this guy in his jail cell, or LAPD was gunning for him from the start.

His post was along the lines of mine, the suspect keeps shooting, you shoot back. It is just logical tactical sense to fire tear gas into the house.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top