Cops have the job of policing. If they’re in immediate danger, they can defend themselves. They don’t get to kill someone because “they deserve it,” that’s what courts are for.
We don’t know the exact details (and when we do they will be given to us from the victors). Could they have waited or used gas? Maybe they decided they couldn’t.
My fear is we will see more situations like this, which have the opportunity for abuse.
I am not referencing departmental standards, I am talking largely about societal ones. Standards that typically don’t allow police to execute people who are not an active threat.
Bullshit. I read what you wrote and it hardly applies. You tried to pretend you were some expert opining about how drones are used during wars as if that has any bearing on this issue or the ability of drones or robots or other weapons of war to be used in other civilian law enforcement manners as technology improves. Your post was just another in a long line of tiresome, condescending screeds you write providing everyone with a dubious history lesson that no one asked for, and that has, at best, a tangential relationship to the discussion at hand. Honestly, it’s ridiculous.
How can I have evidence of something that hasn’t happened yet? Even so, I have serious issues with your incredulity given your claim that, “many police departments have actually trained for just this scenario”. How do you square they idea that many PDs are wasting precious money and man-hours to train for something they never intend to utilize? This is isn’t a nuclear war where the gravity of the situation, and the consequences of being caught off guard dictate some prepation. Further there is the issue that PDs are increasingly desirous to obtain and use military weapons including tanks, grednade launchers, etc. So if you are gonna try a sell a line that these PDs train to use bombs in this fashion, but that such events are so staggeringly rare that these weapons and tactics will essentially never be used, then you need to include some rationale for why you think this is the case.
Hello! My point is that drones don’t have to be used as they are used in war. I know you had your “drones in war” speech all prepared, but common sense and decades of history tells us the initial military applications of a given weapon are not limitations to their eventual use.
First, as I stated before, drones have already been used in LE. Second, PDs have acquired tanks and field artillery in the past and likely will in the future.
Because the penalty for speeding is typically not death. I don’t think I suggested such a thing was likely to become common place despite your absurd contention.
Do you know what expedience means? I wasn’t using it to mean fast.
That’s the issue. Is it safer for police to kill any potentially dangerous suspect rather than talking to them or attempting to de-escalate the situation? Probably. But that’s not what were expect from LE unless it’s absolutely necessary.
How about the fact that we are sitting here arguing about when it’s okay for police to blow up a person who would have otherwise been given a presumption of innocence in court, and been subject to a trial.
Clearly you did not actually comprehend what you read. At no point did I assert that the cops didn’t know Micah Johnson was a “bad guy”.
Agreed. This guy was an active threat, thus rendering every other ridiculous point in your litany of non-sensicals irrelevant.
I very seriously doubt there would have been a trial. I think he would have been offered a chance to plead guilty in exchange for life without parole instead of the death penalty.
As a Canadian I feel compelled to note that the Second Amendment is absolutely the constitutional right to commit mass murder. In exchange for one’s own life any citizen of the United States has the unassailable right to purchase as many firearms and as much ammunition as they can carry. They are then free to use those items to murder as many people as they can. Theater patrons, churchgoers, even children in an elementary school have been called upon to die in horrific orgies of violence because of the sacred right to keep and bear arms. Your right to not be shot at random is much less important than everyone’s right to shoot at random. When twenty children are cut down in a hail of bullets purchased by a mentally ill person and the nation shrugs and carries on you’ve made up your mind. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. The Second Amendment is the right to murder anyone at any time for any reason.
As regards the police robot outperforming a Cyberdyne Systems T-800 Model 101 I take no stance as to whether they were right or wrong. Any keyboard commando can come up with alternate ideas for how they could have resolved the situation. A fire hose, an APC, a hail of tear gas and smoke grenades? Burning bags of shit? Barry Manilow’s greatest hits on repeat? Perhaps they would have explored some of these options if they had the time. But then again, a person who shoots at cops generally is shot by cops. Remember Christopher Dorner? He was surrounded and the police were pulling the walls off of his hiding spot. And while I’m sure they could have surrounded him with enough overwhelming force to convince him to surrender they instead chose to burn down what was left of the building he was hiding in. Murder a cop, get murdered by a cop. Thus spake Amendment the Second of the Constitution of the United States. And so it goes.
[QUOTE=The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America]
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
[/QUOTE]
Nope. I’m missing the “mass murder” part of that. You must have been reading something else.
This is a deeply ignorant post that also contains factual inaccuracies.
Saying the 2nd Amendment is a “right to commit mass murder” is akin to saying the right to own private property is the right to build a secret room in your house to keep sex slaves in. I mean, said sex-dungeon is private property, right? Or that the freedom of movement includes the freedom to run over someone with a car. It’s so asinine as to be absurd. An undesirable result of the 2nd Amendment may in fact be that it leads to mass shootings (something not easily debated especially with someone so intent on being blase and poisoning the well), but that isn’t what you’re saying. Being hyperbolic and frankly, wrong, in your language to critique the 2nd isn’t helpful and doesn’t advance any reasonable discussion.
At the end of the day your argument is also pretty firmly incorrect legally. The 2nd Amendment allows for frankly fairly draconian gun restrictions, both at the State and Federal level. It wasn’t until the 2000s the Supreme Court clarified that those restrictions couldn’t be an outright complete ban to firearm ownership, but in subsequent cases extremely onerous local restrictions have not been overturned. The 2nd Amendment is not a real legal bar to meaningful firearms laws or restrictions.
As for Christopher Dorner–police didn’t intentionally set fire to the cabin he was holed up in, they shot in tear gas canisters that when they detonated caused a fire.
Yeah, his posts are like someone complaining the 9/11 hijackers weren’t given a trial. Just like them this guy deliberately committed suicide in the commission of his crime, so the idea that somehow the evil police denied him his day in court is ludicrous.
This is the part that troubles me: the police chief decided to try to kill the suspect. Not capture him, not subdue him, but try to kill him. If the shooter was truly holed up where he could not threaten the general public (and could barely be called a threat to the officer surrounding him) then a death sentence without a trial seems wrong, IMO. Yes, I think police should have waited him out, if the situation was as I think it was. Having to relieve oneself and the need for food and sleep are excellent motivators but only time can bring them into play.
And I dislike the precedent this sets, which is another notch up on the “all cops go home safe no matter what” mindset that seems to be currently plaguing the police organizations of America.
I’d say if he wasn’t an active threat they should’ve waited; but he was actually still periodically coming out to shoot at the cops and was also threatening to detonate explosives (which seems to be the MO for all these mass shooters now, to threaten they have a bomb.) That means he wasn’t just holed up, but was an active threat. The lulls in between shootings came to be seen as just a temporary reprieve before he started shooting again. I’d agree if he was legitimately just holed up somewhere, you can wait these guys out–if they don’t have hostages the risk is minimal. But I think at least based on the information we have it wasn’t a non-violent standoff.
Seriously? They tried for 30+ minutes to talk some sense into the moron. He refused to budge from his “I’m here to kill cops” attitude. He had every opportunity to peacefully surrender. Yes, the bomb was a safe way to save innocent lives, police and civilian. Screw the ARMED malcontent mass murdering jerkwad.
It what way was he an active threat?
I said he would subject to trial. The point being that a determination of his guilt and subsequent punishment would be based on what the state, a court, and possibly a jury decide, not based on whether someone in LE decides it’s easier to just blow him up. I didn’t say or imply he would choose to go to trial.
Says the guy who clearly doesn’t even know what expedient means. Seriously, your unearned condescension is tiring. Just delete your account.
He was a murderous racist with a gun who just shot a dozen people. Until he has either proven himself unwilling to continue his rampage (by at least discarding all his ammunition and surrendering) or is rendered incapable of continuing his rampage, he’s an active threat.
It’s patently obvious and clearly established in this thread. The fact that you’re playing the “nonsense question game” suggests to me you’re looking for a form of discussion I have no interest in.
Given the evidence we have, he was an active threat, responded to accordingly. Open and shut.
Do you think that is a tenable definition for deciding to kill someone who commits a crime? Put this particular scumbag aside since we can all agree that no one should lose sleep over his death.
Then cite the evidence.
Until he surrenders himself and is in police custody, he is an active threat.
Yes, I do. Any more questions?
Yes, I do. If you murder someone and the police offer you the chance to surrender, you are obligated to take it. If you refuse, and you are killed before you change your mind, it’s your own damn fault.
You think the police have absolutely NO obligation to attempt to arrest people who refuse to surrender? I don’t think you meant to come across that way, but it sounds kind of like you’re saying “refusing to surrender to police should be a capital offense for which you don’t deserve a trial.”