• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dorner: Executed or Accident?

Was Dorner executed or was it an unfortunate consequence?

  • YES, police knew teargas would burn him alive.

    Votes: 25 64.1%

  • NO, it was an honest attempt to subdue him.

    Votes: 14 35.9%
  • Total voters
    39
  • Poll closed .
Wayno said:
Dorner was executed just like Koresh and the dozens of women and children with him in Waco.
Click to expand...

he refused to give himself up; it was his option
no doubt the LAPD did not want him taken alive so that he would be able to speak in a trial
but this fellow's personal fatwa recognized that he was not going to survive his planned vengeance
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
Clearly, if there is evidence that police started the fire intentionally, there should be consequences. But if police used a more aggressive gas cannister knowing it might start a fire, but would also be more likely to drive the suspect out of the cabin, I say fine.

The police did not napalm the building, the suspect had an opportunity to come out, he chose not to, fire or not.

It was a fire fight, if the police stationed a sniper and he had a shot at the suspect and took it, I would not be upset. Each moment this guy was not dead or in custody presented another moment where this guy could murder people.

I am not a big fan of police, I think they generally overstep their bounds and stomp of the rights of law abiding citizens. But this situation is why we have police. i wish they would spend MORE time dealing with seriously dangerous criminals than most of the nonsense they engage in. But I don't think this is the decision of the officers individually, more a bureacratic decision.
Click to expand...

Everyone keeps bringing up the sniper and that usually only happens when there's immediate danger to a hostage. Dorner had nobody else in the cabin with him even though he was armed and dangerous. That situation calls for a standoff or a confrontation with forced entry in which case he could be shot/killed for resistance. The reason we don't allow summary execution by law enforcement is to allow the justice system to have ultimate control over our fate when dealing with law breaking.

I think police are way under paid for what they do risking their lives. But they are held to a high standard of conduct because of the power entrusted to them over our lives.
 
justabubba said:
he refused to give himself up; it was his option
no doubt the LAPD did not want him taken alive so that he would be able to speak in a trial
but this fellow's personal fatwa recognized that he was not going to survive his planned vengeance
Click to expand...

I remember my brother saying to me, when the media was moved a mile or so from the Branch Davidian compound, "Those people are as good as dead now."

I remember thinking the same thing about Doner, and the guy who had his wife, child, an dogs killed by our "compassionate" government.
 
grip said:
Everyone keeps bringing up the sniper and that usually only happens when there's immediate danger to a hostage. Dorner had nobody else in the cabin with him even though he was armed and dangerous. That situation calls for a standoff or a confrontation with forced entry in which case he could be shot/killed for resistance. The reason we don't allow summary execution by law enforcement is to allow the justice system to have ultimate control over our fate when dealing with law breaking.

I think police are way under paid for what they do risking their lives. But they are held to a high standard of conduct because of the power entrusted to them over our lives.
Click to expand...

I get that, and generally agree, so as I said, I would not be upset if they intentionally killed the guy, but I also recognize that this would not (and should not) be normal police procedure, but I suspect if the police had gone this route, they would be able to justify it.

For example, the police did not know if the cabin was just a random destination or if the killer had pre-planned to be at this destination and had resources in place to incure further harm. If this was even suspected, most people would agree that aggressive action would not have been unwarranted.

I would rather castigate the police for the very many obvious violation of the rights of innocent people than argue this one.

I find the process, procedure, and outcome to be acceptable, it is fine if other's don't.
 
Wayno said:
I remember my brother saying to me, when the media was moved a mile or so from the Branch Davidian compound, "Those people are as good as dead now."

I remember thinking the same thing about Doner, and the guy who had his wife, child, an dogs killed by our "compassionate" government.
Click to expand...

i have a sense of compassion for Dorner. i think he got screwed by the LAPD. but you can see by reading his missive that he was prone to making terrible decisions. he was a very ethical person who could not assimilate with people who were less ethical and did not have his personal sense of fair play. had he applied to be a cop in salt lake city, he may have enjoyed a great career. but he ratted out his fellow LAPD cops and how could he not expect reprisal for that. he fought physically rather than verbally when he was verbally assaulted by bigots. he was extremely judgmental and uncompromising. he reminds me of one person - who will go unnamed - on this forum; a likable individual who has his personal opinion of right and wrong and will accommodate no other view. a person who, from time to time, will make oblique threats not dissimilar to those disseminated by Dorner. and Dorner burned his truck for heaven's sake; how dumb was that? had he left it hiding out in the open where no one would find reason to notice it, he would have been better off. so, he was basically a good guy who did bad things because he was unable to cope. he was put down because that was the appropriate thing to do. that said, the DoJ needs to investigate the LAPD's records of the hearing that caused him to be terminated. that department appears to still be dirty and in need of oversight
 
justabubba said:
i have a sense of compassion for Dorner. i think he got screwed by the LAPD. but you can see by reading his missive that he was prone to making terrible decisions. he was a very ethical person who could not assimilate with people who were less ethical and did not have his personal sense of fair play.
Click to expand...

I have no idea if he got screwed by the LAPD. If he did, it still doesn't justify what he did. A reasonable person would pursue a matter like this in the legal system, and not with a gun. It's really a pretty sad case all around, but I cannot bring myself to support his actions, especially his taking out the daughter of one of his perceived enemies. If you have a beef to settle with an individual, and you're going to kill someone, then kill the one who has caused what you perceive as your harm. To take out his daughter is such a disgusting move, that I can't fathom that he had any sense of principle or ethics left whatsoever.
 
grip said:
Everyone keeps bringing up the sniper and that usually only happens when there's immediate danger to a hostage. Dorner had nobody else in the cabin with him even though he was armed and dangerous. That situation calls for a standoff or a confrontation with forced entry in which case he could be shot/killed for resistance. The reason we don't allow summary execution by law enforcement is to allow the justice system to have ultimate control over our fate when dealing with law breaking.

I think police are way under paid for what they do risking their lives. But they are held to a high standard of conduct because of the power entrusted to them over our lives.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's simply not true.

We now ALLOW summary execution, and imprisonment indefinitely without charges even being brought, based on absolutely NO judicial review.

All it takes is the President saying it needs to be done...

Of course, those who support that fascist policy, and then go on to espouse how they're "liberals" arew revealing themselves as nothing but a sick joke.
 
justabubba said:
he refused to give himself up; it was his option
no doubt the LAPD did not want him taken alive so that he would be able to speak in a trial
but this fellow's personal fatwa recognized that he was not going to survive his planned vengeance
Click to expand...

Says who?

LAPD to the MSM.

Right.....
 
justabubba said:
i have a sense of compassion for Dorner. i think he got screwed by the LAPD. but you can see by reading his missive that he was prone to making terrible decisions. he was a very ethical person who could not assimilate with people who were less ethical and did not have his personal sense of fair play. had he applied to be a cop in salt lake city, he may have enjoyed a great career. but he ratted out his fellow LAPD cops and how could he not expect reprisal for that. he fought physically rather than verbally when he was verbally assaulted by bigots. he was extremely judgmental and uncompromising. he reminds me of one person - who will go unnamed - on this forum; a likable individual who has his personal opinion of right and wrong and will accommodate no other view. a person who, from time to time, will make oblique threats not dissimilar to those disseminated by Dorner. and Dorner burned his truck for heaven's sake; how dumb was that? had he left it hiding out in the open where no one would find reason to notice it, he would have been better off. so, he was basically a good guy who did bad things because he was unable to cope. he was put down because that was the appropriate thing to do. that said, the DoJ needs to investigate the LAPD's records of the hearing that caused him to be terminated. that department appears to still be dirty and in need of oversight
Click to expand...

You're assuming the charges he made about the LAPD were true and correct, without any evidence.

Obviously, a guy who uses weapons to defend a manifesto calling for the abolishment of weapons, and who thinks Chris Mathews is a vision of impartionality, has some SERIOUS issues.
 
SMTA said:
I did.

Does not mean anything about what actually happened at the cabin.
Click to expand...

after reading the manifesto, did you really expect him to surrender?
after seeing the slaughter that he perpetrated, did you really expect the LEO's to place themselves at risk to bring him in alive?
 
justabubba said:
after reading the manifesto, did you really expect him to surrender?
after seeing the slaughter that he perpetrated, did you really expect the LEO's to place themselves at risk to bring him in alive?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what his thought process was at the end, as opposed to when he wrote his manifesto.

I expect LEOs to respect all alleged criminals' rights, and remember that they are innocent until proven guilty.
 
Wayno said:
Sorry, but that's simply not true.

We now ALLOW summary execution, and imprisonment indefinitely without charges even being brought, based on absolutely NO judicial review.

All it takes is the President saying it needs to be done...

Of course, those who support that fascist policy, and then go on to espouse how they're "liberals" arew revealing themselves as nothing but a sick joke.
Click to expand...

I think you're talking about out of the country treatment of non-citizens? They probably would still permanently intern a citizen but we'll never hear about that one. Threaten the president and some guys in black suits and sunglasses will show up to your door, handcuff you and ship your ass to some island in the Artic to an underground base...lol
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
I get that, and generally agree, so as I said, I would not be upset if they intentionally killed the guy, but I also recognize that this would not (and should not) be normal police procedure, but I suspect if the police had gone this route, they would be able to justify it.

For example, the police did not know if the cabin was just a random destination or if the killer had pre-planned to be at this destination and had resources in place to incure further harm. If this was even suspected, most people would agree that aggressive action would not have been unwarranted.

I would rather castigate the police for the very many obvious violation of the rights of innocent people than argue this one.

I find the process, procedure, and outcome to be acceptable, it is fine if other's don't.
Click to expand...

I don't think it should taken lightly that the police be given a license to kill indiscriminately. It has historically not worked out well for people when this kind of power is given to law enforcement in the field. Too many decisions based on emotions and quick responses lead to horrible mistakes and miscarriages of justice.
 
grip said:
I don't think it should taken lightly that the police be given a license to kill indiscriminately. It has historically not worked out well for people when this kind of power is given to law enforcement in the field. Too many decisions based on emotions and quick responses lead to horrible mistakes and miscarriages of justice.
Click to expand...

Where do I argue that indiscrimate killing by police should be acceptable?

I have simply argued that I do not personally find fault in this instance, and, perhaps more importantly, if one wants to make an arguement against police overstepping their authority, there are thousands of better examples.

I would argue that making a case based on this incident is analogous to defending gun rights with a plaintive that murdered people with a gun.

Radly Balko has hundreds of examples of cops killing actually innocent people. if you want to make a stand on this issue, and I wholeheartedly agree with making a stand, this is case is not the ground on which I would recommend planting your flag.
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
Where do I argue that indiscrimate killing by police should be acceptable?

I have simply argued that I do not personally find fault in this instance, and, perhaps more importantly, if one wants to make an arguement against police overstepping their authority, there are thousands of better examples.

I would argue that making a case based on this incident is analogous to defending gun rights with a plaintive that murdered people with a gun.

Radly Balko has hundreds of examples of cops killing actually innocent people. if you want to make a stand on this issue, and I wholeheartedly agree with making a stand, this is case is not the ground on which I would recommend planting your flag.
Click to expand...

This is exactly where one should place their flag, actually. If this is the weakest case to support an argument, and if the argument is valid in this case, then it would be valid in all cases.

The question we should be asking you is: Why is this case different than any other situation? Do we know that the man in the cabin was Dorner? Do we know that he was guilty?

Personally, I'm glad he died. Very glad. But I don't think it's the job of the police to make that call in any case. If there are problems with our court system and you don't have confidence in it to find him guilty - or if you think our penetentry system wouldn't be a situation appropriate for his circumstances (perhaps you believe he should be in worse conditions for example), then that is where you should focus your arguments. Not on giving police inconsistent powers to kill the perps.
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
Where do I argue that indiscrimate killing by police should be acceptable?

I have simply argued that I do not personally find fault in this instance, and, perhaps more importantly, if one wants to make an arguement against police overstepping their authority, there are thousands of better examples.

I would argue that making a case based on this incident is analogous to defending gun rights with a plaintive that murdered people with a gun.

Radly Balko has hundreds of examples of cops killing actually innocent people. if you want to make a stand on this issue, and I wholeheartedly agree with making a stand, this is case is not the ground on which I would recommend planting your flag.
Click to expand...

If you're saying it doesn't matter how they got Dorner as long as they got him, then you're supporting indiscriminate killing, incorrect?
 
fredmertzz said:
This is exactly where one should place their flag, actually. If this is the weakest case to support an argument, and if the argument is valid in this case, then it would be valid in all cases.

The question we should be asking you is: Why is this case different than any other situation? Do we know that the man in the cabin was Dorner? Do we know that he was guilty?

Personally, I'm glad he died. Very glad. But I don't think it's the job of the police to make that call in any case. If there are problems with our court system and you don't have confidence in it to find him guilty - or if you think our penetentry system wouldn't be a situation appropriate for his circumstances (perhaps you believe he should be in worse conditions for example), then that is where you should focus your arguments. Not on giving police inconsistent powers to kill the perps.
Click to expand...

The I guess that is where you'll plant your flag. I believe that the police have already made a valid case for their actions, and will do so in greater detail in the days and weeks ahead, such that few will find any reason for outrage, but there will of course be that few, there always is. I think popular outrage is important, and there are many cases that could, and should stir up popular outrage, but this just ain't one of them.

But good luck with that.
 
grip said:
I don't think it should taken lightly that the police be given a license to kill indiscriminately. It has historically not worked out well for people when this kind of power is given to law enforcement in the field. Too many decisions based on emotions and quick responses lead to horrible mistakes and miscarriages of justice.
Click to expand...

They don't have a license to kill indiscriminately.

I'm curious as to just what someone has to do in order to justifiable pop his head off since engaging the police in a direct gunfight doesn't cut it.
 
grip said:
If you're saying it doesn't matter how they got Dorner as long as they got him, then you're supporting indiscriminate killing, incorrect?
Click to expand...

No, I am not saying that, I am saying that I am satisfied with the explanation the police have given to date. If new details emerge, I may change my opinion.

What I said, specifically, and you have read it, was this, "Clearly, if there is evidence that police started the fire intentionally, there should be consequences. But if police used a more aggressive gas cannister knowing it might start a fire, but would also be more likely to drive the suspect out of the cabin, I say fine."

How does this translate into supporting indsicriminate killing?

Define indiscriminate and then look at my comment.

The Sandy Hook killer, once he entered the school, seemed to engage in indiscriminate killing. You see the difference, right?

At the very, very least, the police DID discriminate, even if they did intentionally kill the guy. But as I said, at the moment, I see no evidence that is the case,
 
Aunt Spiker said:
They don't have a license to kill indiscriminately.

I'm curious as to just what someone has to do in order to justifiable pop his head off since engaging the police in a direct gunfight doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...

I don't think we want the police killing easily or making decisions based on emotion because it makes them judge, jury and executioner. I'm not saying the police were wrong in this instance but it doesn't look good for them to use an incendiary device to burn a suspect out because, until any of us are convicted, regardless of how bad it looks were still not guilty by law.
 
I don't think the tear gas was intentionally used to start a fire... The tear gas was most likely meant to cause him to run out, give up, or just simply give them an advantage in the standoff.

The guy had already went far beyond trying to take him down peacefully. He had already killed a cop on the scene. You shoot to kill when an armed target is actively shooting and killing your men... there is no injustice here. If he screamed out I GIVE UP and ran out naked dropping to the ground with his hands behind his back, then yea, don't kill him. But he showed no signs of giving up shooting at police.
 
grip said:
I don't think we want the police killing easily or making decisions based on emotion because it makes them judge, jury and executioner. I'm not saying the police were wrong in this instance but it doesn't look good for them to use an incendiary device to burn a suspect out because, until any of us are convicted, regardless of how bad it looks were still not guilty by law.
Click to expand...

I have not seen anyone anywhere, until now, suggest that police used the incendiary version of the tear gas delivery device with the intention of burning the guy to death. we have been told that it was used to drive him out with the stronger tear gas, and fire was a possibility, but even if the officers wanted to start the fire, the fire by no means required that the suspect be burned to death. He could have easily just exited the building and surrendered.

He apparently chose not to go this route, and it is likely that he shot himself instead.

Did the police kill him at all?

I really don't think so.

If your house catches fire, do you leave, or do you stay and shoot yourself?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom