II-zOoLoGy-II
(Banned)
- 2,713
- F YOU
That's your opinion; I, however, will side with both the Supreme Court and The President on this one.
Manhunt in SoCal, suspect is surrounded in a cabin, two officers down.
- Thread starter Leonidae@MFT
- 349 comments
- 14,767 views
- 87,564
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
My opinion is that, as a US citizen, you should be afford the protection of the Bill of Rights. It agrees with me.
Their opinion is that you shouldn't.
- 4,543
- Bay Area, CA
- Zenith113
- 17,865
- 509
Mr. "RIGHT to bear arms" doesn't care about four of the other ten Amendments?
I'm pretty damn confused by this myself.
Zoo, you are aware that it wouldn't be very hard to just kill possible trouble makers or whistle blowers under the premise that they were "just terrorists?" Without due-process and trials, it simply gives the government far too much power to terminate those with voices or opinions they dislike. This is the kind of logic that leads to military states and, as much as it pains me to say it, V for Vendetta scenarios.
- 3,460
- Hollywood
A UAV can be left to fly by itself and gather huge amounts of information over much larger areas than helicopters. The drones that the U.S use (Predator and Reaper) can stay in the air for up to 20 hours (including flying a few hundred miles to the observation point) at an altitude of 25,000ft - completely undetected. Add missiles and loiter time drops by around 5 hours.
A helicopter will struggle to fly a few hundred miles before it needs to land and refuel.
Not sure about you but those things watching me from above would make me a little uneasy.
If this guy does get taken out by a drone strike, the population of the U.S must speak out against it.
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
And now you know why his 6th amendment rights will be violated as well.
- 4,687
- Golden State
- xViLLaiNx12
How about the Bill of Rights?
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
The suspect has killed three people, including a police officer, and injured at least two more. He has, in his own words, declared war on the Los Angles Police Department, and promised to use, in his own words, "unconventional and asymmetric" tactics to fight that war. Unconfirmed reports of sightings of him have led to schools being forced into lockdown and department stores being evacuated. The suspect might not specifically describe himself as a terrorist - which terrorist does? - but his actions do inspire terror. Timothy McVeigh, the most infamous of domestic terrorists, never considered what he did to be terrorism.
- 11,660
- GTP_Orido
What would you do if you meet Dorner, and he needs your help to stay under the radar ?
Me, I would not fear him at all, his targets are the police, not some random people, and unless proven in the court, he is still a suspect, I will forget that I met him, and if he needs anything in particular that I can provide with, I would help, as long as it's not committing a crime. If the cops find out I gave him assistance, I would just say I was under duress and afraid of getting hurt
He must stay alive to stand trial, whether he will be found guilty or not, I want the truth, whatever that may be ...dirty cops in LAPD or Dorner has lost his mind.
Me, I would not fear him at all, his targets are the police, not some random people, and unless proven in the court, he is still a suspect, I will forget that I met him, and if he needs anything in particular that I can provide with, I would help, as long as it's not committing a crime. If the cops find out I gave him assistance, I would just say I was under duress and afraid of getting hurt
He must stay alive to stand trial, whether he will be found guilty or not, I want the truth, whatever that may be ...dirty cops in LAPD or Dorner has lost his mind.
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
What would you do if you meet Dorner, and he needs your help to stay under the radar ?
Me, I would not fear him at all, his targets are the police, not some random people, and unless proven in the court, he is still a suspect, I will forget that I met him, and if he needs anything in particular that I can provide with, I would help, as long as it's not committing a crime. If the cops find out I gave him assistance, I would just say I was under duress and afraid of getting hurt
He must stay alive to stand trial, whether he will be found guilty or not, I want the truth, whatever that may be ...dirty cops in LAPD or Dorner has lost his mind.
Aiding and abetting is a serious offense. Of course if you did that and also managed to persuade he turned himself in, I'd buy you a coffee.
- 19,698
- Alabamamania
Uh, if he fires upon anyone else who's armed, they'd have the right to shoot (to kill) in return. This isn't G. I. Joe.
- 11,660
- GTP_Orido
Persuasion would be my 1st move, then "helping" - forgetting of ever meeting him, give him access to information, food, medicine ( never wrong to be a Samaritan ) or let him tend his own business without alerting the cops, I'll act as if the "help" is out of fear getting hurt, the same way I would testify to the police,
" I was afraid, what can I do ? I am just law abiding citizen under duress from a wanted fugitive ... what do you expect, trying for citizen arrest ? I sure as hell won't help you cops to kill him, even if I saw him somewhere, I won't tell you so you can put a bullet in him, is that against the law ? "
The cops ain't no Harry Callahan or Robocop
and you are right, not GI Joe either, but I suspect the LAPD will act like dirty "Dirty Harry" anytime they have the chance ( nobody's looking ) - 2 women have already taste it.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 4,543
- Bay Area, CA
- Zenith113
I have difficulty believing that the LAPD are committed to taking the man alive if possible when they fired off over 100 rounds in two instances where they thought they had him.
Who is saying that?
- 40,872
They were so worried about "arresting" him that they accidentally "arrested" two other people.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Hasn't your argument on that subject always been that those police acted recklessly, and that if they had followed procedure, the incidents would have been avoided?
Because I countered that the police involved were humans underneath their uniforms, and therefore capable of making mistakes.
At which point you and Justin counter-countered that those in uniform have a standard that is expected of them, one of them should have been observed.
Now, stop me if I'm wrong here, but isn't that a bit of a contradiction? If the police have a standard that they are being held to, and procedures that they are required to follow - as per your argument - then why have you suddenly done an about-face and suggested that the LAPD as a whole will open fire on the suspect the moment they see him?
Furthermore, wouldn't you agree that it is in the LAPD's interests to apprehend the suspect alive, given his accusations that the culture within the department has not changed (or has not changed enough) since the Rodney King and CRASH scandals? By killing him - even if he was genuinely resisting arrest - the LAPD look guilty.
arora implied it with this comment:
He is suggesting that McVeigh was only a terrorist because he was arrested and stood trial, and therefore peple had the time to label him a terrorist, as if the then-unidentified person responsible for the bombing was not a terrorist until someone took responsiblity for it.
No, I'm not. It's a valid question. You're the one who is dodging it. Here, I'll re-state it:
The suspect has already been labelled a domestic terrorist:
Why do you assume that the past actions of two police officers are representative of the future actions of the ten thousand and twenty-one other officers in the LAPD, especially considering that the police involved in that shooting have been taken off duty?
- 5,139
- SLO
- playnthru
? it was your post ?
- 40,872
Why do you assume that two police officers who decided the best course of action was to shoot on sight a hundred some-odd times (to the extent that they shot two people who looked nothing like the guy they were after, because why take the chance?) being taken off duty means that none of those 10,021 other police officers will be acting the same way?
They're even officially throwing around the dreaded T-word now in relation to his status. And as several people in this thread have made clear, apparently so long as he's a (*gasp!*) terrorist, he has no right to a trial anyway. He might as well kiss his ass goodbye now. Which brings us back to this:
That's not even remotely what he was suggesting. He was suggesting that the LAPD labeling Dorver a domestic terrorist greatly decreased the chances that he will get his 6th Amendment Rights, which isn't something McVeigh had to deal with because in 1995 being a domestic terrorist didn't mean that you didn't have access to those rights like it seems to now.
Last edited:
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I didn't say that. I asked you why you assumed the suspect would be shot and killed whilst being apprehended. I also asked you why you were under the impression that being shot and killed whilst being apprehended would soemhow prove that the suspect is not a terrorist.
Oh, he does.
I'm making that assumption because when we were knee-deep in the debate about the responsibilities of the police in the shooting of the Toyota, everybody said that they expect the police to follow the proper and appropriate procedures. Since those proper and appropriate procedures do not involve opening fire without provocation, it strikes me as odd that the same people who argued that point so vehemently are now the most convinced that the police will open fire without provocation.
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
I have zero idea why you keep putting the word of terror in my mouth, you are looking silly in doing so.
As for why? Have you still turned a blind eye to the old lady? Of course you have because you like cool aid.
Similar threads
