Right: since the deceased was a Bad Person, he should have taken being burned alive like a man, or at the very least being shot as he fled the burning cabin. Is that what you meant?
I would think the answer to the question depends, in part, on who owns the building and how the decision to set fire to it was made. I don’t understand why setting fire to a building would be a legitimate response to an immanent threat; could a LEO or military person explain why this is reasonable?
Police departments are not equipped with incendiary devices. This is not the military where you can send someone through enemy gunfire to light the house. I would put money on them shooting tear gas grenades from a distance. Primarily to get him out of the house. But deadly force was justified. He killed 4 people and injured more. At that point you don’t have to wait to let him shoot at you again. If he doesn’t comply 100% he is dead. Although it sometimes happens, sacrificing your life is not a job requirement of being a police officer.
This audio suggests the fire was, in fact, set deliberately, but perhaps that is because I’m not familiar with police slang. Is “burn” ever used for “tear gas”? Would it have been clear in context that the intent was to “burn him out with tear gas” rather than “burn down the cabin”?
I hope I don’t sound like I’m on the murderer’s side, here, but the media reports make it look like the police were so angry they were out to get him, and I’m trying to get a more nuanced picture. Thanks for any information.
It’s pretty obvious that this guy deserved what he got.
That said, I’m scratching my head over the LAPD’s willingness to randomly open fire on citizens in their vehicles. They made it abundantly clear that there was no escalation of force procedure in place, and their intent was to kill him without attempting an arrest (or even obtaining positive identification). That’s not acceptable for law enforcement.
The big take away is to always make your final stand in a concrete building.
nm
I have no idea who said what or what they meant. I only know they did not have any munitions that’s primary function is to set fires. There was very good reasons to bring this to a close as quick as possible.
It had nothing to do with anyone being mad and out to get him. He was on a mission to kill cops. He killed cops. He was going to kill more cops. Even if there was nothing but emotionless robotic cops out there they were justified in using deadly force at anytime during the incident.
Really?
The LAPD already demonstrated they’re willing to use deadly force even when they have no idea if they are shooting the right guy.
I hope you realize that California is a big place. Big Bear is not in LA.
I haven’t heard that slang, but there are non-incendiary and incendiary tear gas grenades, calling the incendiary type “burners” would make sense (they also burn like shit on your eyes and mucous membranes, so that would work as well). Apparently they first used non-incendiary type, then the incendiary type when those didn’t drive him out.
Even though they’re called incendiary tear gas grenades, as Loach says they aren’t incendiary devices designed to generate intense heat or start fires like a thermite grenade, they just use an internal flare to disperse the irritant. They get good and hot and can start fires, but that isn’t their purpose. They don’t immediately throw flame all over the place and take a while to generate heat, so Dorner probably would have had time to vacate the premises before a raging inferno was underway, unless one landed right in a pile of gas-soaked pencil shavings or something.
Irrelevant.
Thank you.
I vote for the “fleeing felon” doctrine. Here you have a violent man who the police are attempting to place under arrest. He refuses. Deadly force is authorized.
I realize that the doctrine has been severely limited in recent years, but if there ever was a time for a “shoot first, questions later” policy for a fleeing felon, this was it.
As far as owner compensation, at common law this would be considered a “public necessity” and no money would be forthcoming. However, I believe that most (all?) states have established a statutory fund to compensate owners of destroyed property caused by a public necessity.
No. Not in the least. But thanks for painting a picture of my intentions anyway. :rolleyes:
What I meant was that when the tear gas and flash/bang devices hit, he should have walked out that door and given up with hands raised. Would he have been executed on the spot, with hands in the air? I hope not. I know the LAPD has a real rep, but this is America. You want to start cheering for the local PO’s becoming judge, jury and executioner? Move to South Sudan.
I would have hoped he would have been taken into custody, arraigned and prosecuted. And convicted. You know. Like they do in The United States of America?
Not relevant to all of the issues brought up in this thread but totally relevant to the post I quoted.
I don’t know about the exact law in California by here in the Garden State deadly force is permitted if the suspect presents an IMMINENT threat of death or serious bodily injury. This is different than IMMEDIATE. Say a guy is walking up to me with a knife raised over his head, refusing orders to stop. The law does not require me to wait until he is within stabbing distance (immediate danger) to shoot. Nor does it permit me to shoot him when is 100 yards away. There is no magic number but somewhere in there the danger becomes imminent. This maniac, in my opinion, was an imminent deadly danger and everything, including setting the house on fire or shooting it with a missile, would be on the table, both legally and morally. It would be objectively reasonable under the circumstances as is required by Graham v. Connor.
No. Not at all.
While I certainly think the guy was no loss, it seems fairly certain that the LAPD weren’t interested in taking him alive. I did note the LAPD spokeman saying that there were LAPD “resources” standing by in the county, just waiting for the sheriff to ask for their help. I imagine the sheriff figured that was all he needed, and left them “standing by”.
I seem to recall that the standard is something like 21 feet, under the theory that a man with a knife can close that distance before an officer could respond. Mythbusters did an episode on this, with Jamie holding a knife and rushing Adam, who was armed with a gun. Jamie’s assault was, frankly, terrifying and he was able to beat Adam up to something like 35 feet.
Of course, this IS Jamie Hyneman we are talking about.
Your well thought out argument has swayed me.
You haven’t shown any relevance.
You want me to list the lack of relevance? Here: