• 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 .
Ikari said:
Proactive police!? That's very scary.
Click to expand...

Most cities who have a proactive law enforcement policy usually have a low crime rate. Most cities who have a reactive law enforcement policy have a high violent crime rate.

These cities that have a high violent crime rate usually have a police chief who is known as a "progressive police chief" and who are usually politically progressive or liberal. And or the city government leadership is dominated with liberals who dictate the policies of the police department and force reactive law enforcement upon the community.

I preffer proactive law enforcement, where law enforcement is more concerned with preventing crime instead of reacting to crime after a crime has already been comitted.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Could they have used flash bangs to stun him? Or maybe use a sound weapon to disarm and disorient him.
Click to expand...
But, do these things exist and does the LAPD know how to use them...
I do favor non-lethal, but....with Dorner....one cannot blame the police at all..
 
APACHERAT said:
Most cities who have a proactive law enforcement policy usually have a low crime rate. Most cities who have a reactive law enforcement policy have a high violent crime rate.

These cities that have a high violent crime rate usually have a police chief who is known as a "progressive police chief" and who are usually politically progressive or liberal. And or the city government leadership is dominated with liberals who dictate the policies of the police department and force reactive law enforcement upon the community.

I preffer proactive law enforcement, where law enforcement is more concerned with preventing crime instead of reacting to crime after a crime has already been comitted.
Click to expand...

Given this agrgument, one must agree.
But, is it even possible to have proof of this.??..
No-one will admit to being "soft on crime".
 
here's his manifesto
https://sites.google.com/site/christopherjdorner/home
read it. it's quite compelling
he had the LAPD scared ****less. named those he was after and the techniques he was using to target them
Dorner knew he wasn't going to come out alive
his manifesto contains his goodbyes, to personal and public figures

i do hope that the DOJ will now conduct its own investigation into his termination
let's see if Dorner was screwed because he dared be a whistleblower against another officer

this is the fellow who - a decade ago - returned thousands of found dollars to a korean church - because he knew that was the right thing to do
seems to have been a person of integrity and principle
read the manifesto and see for yourselves
 
APACHERAT said:
Most cities who have a proactive law enforcement policy usually have a low crime rate. Most cities who have a reactive law enforcement policy have a high violent crime rate.

These cities that have a high violent crime rate usually have a police chief who is known as a "progressive police chief" and who are usually politically progressive or liberal. And or the city government leadership is dominated with liberals who dictate the policies of the police department and force reactive law enforcement upon the community.

I preffer proactive law enforcement, where law enforcement is more concerned with preventing crime instead of reacting to crime after a crime has already been comitted.
Click to expand...

....the founders made a reactive system for a reason; but I suppose those who fear will always excuse more government force. "Conservative" ha!
 
justabubba said:
here's his manifesto
https://sites.google.com/site/christopherjdorner/home
read it. it's quite compelling
he had the LAPD scared ****less. named those he was after and the techniques he was using to target them
Dorner knew he wasn't going to come out alive
his manifesto contains his goodbyes, to personal and public figures

i do hope that the DOJ will now conduct its own investigation into his termination
let's see if Dorner was screwed because he dared be a whistleblower against another officer

this is the fellow who - a decade ago - returned thousands of found dollars to a korean church - because he knew that was the right thing to do
seems to have been a person of integrity and principle
read the manifesto and see for yourselves
Click to expand...

Not even angels are immune to corruption.
 
justabubba said:
here's his manifesto
https://sites.google.com/site/christopherjdorner/home
read it. it's quite compelling
he had the LAPD scared ****less. named those he was after and the techniques he was using to target them
Dorner knew he wasn't going to come out alive
his manifesto contains his goodbyes, to personal and public figures

i do hope that the DOJ will now conduct its own investigation into his termination
let's see if Dorner was screwed because he dared be a whistleblower against another officer

this is the fellow who - a decade ago - returned thousands of found dollars to a korean church - because he knew that was the right thing to do
seems to have been a person of integrity and principle
read the manifesto and see for yourselves
Click to expand...

From what I've already seen about his case he was screwed over by a corrupt system. But I'm sorry, that still doesn't justify his outright insane behavior of killing people. The LAPD may have had a hand in instigating the situation and letting it snowball but the man was unstable in a scary way because his competency wasn't completely compromised. The grandiose statements he made show that once again someone has slipped through the safety net of determining the criminally insane.

If the police did try to execute him without trial, for who knows what reasons they should be seriously investigated. Doubt anything other than a brush under the rug will occur.
 
grip said:
Doubt anything other than a brush under the rug will occur.
Click to expand...

And that's pretty much what spurred this entire thing to start with.
 
justabubba said:
here's his manifesto
https://sites.google.com/site/christopherjdorner/home
read it. it's quite compelling
he had the LAPD scared ****less. named those he was after and the techniques he was using to target them
Dorner knew he wasn't going to come out alive
his manifesto contains his goodbyes, to personal and public figures

i do hope that the DOJ will now conduct its own investigation into his termination
let's see if Dorner was screwed because he dared be a whistleblower against another officer

this is the fellow who - a decade ago - returned thousands of found dollars to a korean church - because he knew that was the right thing to do
seems to have been a person of integrity and principle
read the manifesto and see for yourselves
Click to expand...

Thanks for that link. If he was a person of integrity and principle, I find it pretty damn sad that he was unable to maintain that enough to keep him from killing people. I realize the entire situation is very sad, but there is a line which no person should cross, and a person of integrity and principle should know that. Whenever you take up killing as a resolution to your problems, that line has been crossed.
 
lizzie said:
I realize the entire situation is very sad, but there is a line which no person should cross, and a person of integrity and principle should know that. Whenever you take up killing as a resolution to your problems, that line has been crossed.
Click to expand...

Is this an absolute statement?
 
Ikari said:
Is this an absolute statement?
Click to expand...
There are no absolutes, but it's pretty damn close in my own mind. You start killing other people, not in self-defense, and you have crossed the line into the world of irrational.
 
Ikari said:
....the founders made a reactive system for a reason; but I suppose those who fear will always excuse more government force. "Conservative" ha!
Click to expand...

Reactive only under Article Five of the Constitution.

>"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."<
 
APACHERAT said:
Reactive only under Article Five of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Reactive in that it cannot exercise its power against the individual without proof of some misdeed having been done FIRST. Proactive policing is what we get at the conventions when police pre-arrest people they think could be trouble makers. Proactive government is a problem, not an asset.
 
lizzie said:
There are no absolutes, but it's pretty damn close in my own mind. You start killing other people, not in self-defense, and you have crossed the line into the world of irrational.
Click to expand...

OK. There are certainly times when revolt against government and violence could certainly be warranted, no matter how sad it may be to engage in such. Was it here? I don't think so, but I read the man's manifesto and his complaints, and I don't think it was out of line with that at all. And I doubt anything good will come of this either. He's dead, the police will sweep it under the rug, there will be no repercussions for all the cars and people the cops shot up/at in their zeal to kill this guy.
 
Ikari said:
Reactive in that it cannot exercise its power against the individual without proof of some misdeed having been done FIRST. Proactive policing is what we get at the conventions when police pre-arrest people they think could be trouble makers. Proactive government is a problem, not an asset.
Click to expand...

Not true. Under the Terry v Ohio decision the Supreme Court gave police authority to take some proactive steps if the police reasonably believe that a crime is about to committed. Under the same doctrine the police may do a pat down of someone they've stopped if they believe that person is armed.

And of course it's pretty much left to he police to define what is reasonable.

Additionally courts have held that certain critical pieces of infrastructure, like subways, are attractive terrorist targets and as such some 4th amendment protections don't apply. That what gives he NYPD the power to execute bag searches of people entering the subway.
 
Gaius46 said:
Not true. Under the Terry v Ohio decision the Supreme Court gave police authority to take some proactive steps if the police reasonably believe that a crime is about to committed. Under the same doctrine the police may do a pat down of someone they've stopped if they believe that person is armed.

And of course it's pretty much left to he police to define what is reasonable.

Additionally courts have held that certain critical pieces of infrastructure, like subways, are attractive terrorist targets and as such some 4th amendment protections don't apply. That what gives he NYPD the power to execute bag searches of people entering the subway.
Click to expand...

And we slowly chip away and degrade our rights as government force and police domination grow.
 
Ikari said:
And we slowly chip away and degrade our rights as government force and police domination grow.
Click to expand...

Yep. And as a NY resident who works in the city I ride the subway every day. And if seeing cops with AR15s and full riot gear and armed National Guard troops (whatever happened to Posse Comitatus??) in Penn Station isn't bad enough the cops and TSA routinely check your bags. What are we a third world petty dictatorship?

Not to derail this threat but my guess is that the searches are more about nailing people with drugs. Even an idiotic terrorist would realize that he can just exit the station and go two blocks to another one that doesn't have a bag check.
 
Gaius46 said:
Yep. And as a NY resident who works in the city I ride the subway every day. And if seeing cops with AR15s and full riot gear and armed National Guard troops (whatever happened to Posse Comitatus??) in Penn Station isn't bad enough the cops and TSA routinely check your bags. What are we a third world petty dictatorship?

Not to derail this threat but my guess is that the searches are more about nailing people with drugs. Even an idiotic terrorist would realize that he can just exit the station and go two blocks to another one that doesn't have a bag check.
Click to expand...

It's fairly depressing to see how far people will allow the government to strip them of their human decency in order to obtain some imagined amount of "safety".
 
earthworm said:
No-one will admit to being "soft on crime".
Click to expand...

You also noticed that. But the political left has been wearing that label for well over forty years now.

Are you aware of the original term limits that were put on elected politicians was really about ? Liberals who were soft on crime.

His name was Willie Brown, he's from the fringe of the left. He was the Speaker of the California State Assembly. This leftist fought against every crime bill that was introduced in the State Assembly for thirty years. He eventually became the Speaker of the Assembly in 1980. He was anti police and pro criminal.

Eventually even the moderate liberals realised that these radical liberals like Willie Brown were tarnishing all liberals as being weak on crime and the guy had to go. The only way of doing this was through term limits.

Should be noted, under "Common Law" and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled and up held this law numerous times that any law enforcement officer or law abiding citizen can use lethal force to stop a fleeing suspected felon if he or she believes that the fleeing suspected felon may be a threat to others or commit another felony if he escapes apprehension.

Now in some states where liberals are soft on crime and ignore "Commoln Law", they have passed legislation saying you can't use lethal force on a fleeing felon, that felons have a right to continue murdering, raping, robbing and burlarizing others untill they are captured.

Who's soft on crime ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom