Gun battle with Los Angeles cop

[Mtber1172]

No, only defensive shootings are legal outside of war, so as long as their actions did not cross into assault style actions then there is no problem.

My issue is shooting into the back of a truck that is not evading you and not presenting a threat, that's an assault, not defensive. While we can draw some long string claiming it was defensive in the name of public safety, they were making no efforts for peaceful resolution when presented with no threat, made obvious by the shooting of two innocent vehicles .

Now while we can't be sure what happened at the cabin and if Dorner was trying to leave the cabin to surrender, if he was armed, etc.... the history of the LAPD's actions is not presenting a very good case for them. In an age of murky transparency, concealment under "personnel files ", and withholding info for legal purposes, we can only judge based on the history of it and some comments over a police scanner.

- - - Updated - - -



Latino news paper delivery woman and her daughter. Not sure of the other one.

LAPD was at the cabin? I thought it was DNR and local Sheriffs?

 

[attison]

I guess some of you would run right on in there or send your fireman without considering the possibility of booby traps that could kill or injure many more.
Life in the real world doesn't follow Hollywood or comic book scripts, these are not hypothetical training exercises ..its real time ..make a mistake and you or other friendlies die.

that is something to consider but they could have at least tried to put out the fire from a distance, what about his two hostages they said he had

There is no safe distance to put out the fire when there is a guy shooting. Unless the scene is safe there was no need to risk others getting killed. Not to mention it would take a lot of water pressure to reach that fire. Ya gotta way risk versus reward. Risk was way too much.

 

[BE46ST]

My issue is shooting into the back of a truck that is not evading you and not presenting a threat, that's an assault, not defensive. While we can draw some long string claiming it was defensive in the name of public safety, they were making no efforts for peaceful resolution when presented with no threat, made obvious by the shooting of two innocent vehicles .

Yep. If you look at the picture of the two latino women's truck you can count over 50 bullet holes, that means the cops had to reload more than once each. Also all the bullet casings are right outside the cruiser. That means the cops pulled over the truck got out of their car and just opened fire, a barrage of it to say the least. They didn't even remotely check to see if it was him or ask any questions on the PA or anything. They just started shooting over 50 times before they even went to see who was actually in the truck! You'd think maybe they'd stop unloading their guns when they arent even getting shot back at.

I don't understand why we aren't focusing on the corrupt police more

 

[Cobalt 60]

No, only defensive shootings are legal outside of war, so as long as their actions did not cross into assault style actions then there is no problem.

My issue is shooting into the back of a truck that is not evading you and not presenting a threat, that's an assault, not defensive. While we can draw some long string claiming it was defensive in the name of public safety, they were making no efforts for peaceful resolution when presented with no threat, made obvious by the shooting of two innocent vehicles .

Now while we can't be sure what happened at the cabin and if Dorner was trying to leave the cabin to surrender, if he was armed, etc.... the history of the LAPD's actions is not presenting a very good case for them. In an age of murky transparency, concealment under "personnel files ", and withholding info for legal purposes, we can only judge based on the history of it and some comments over a police scanner.

- - - Updated - - -



Latino news paper delivery woman and her daughter. Not sure of the other one.

Quit with the well reasoned argument and get mad as hell along with me!!!!

 

[mountainpass]

[Updated at 8:34 p.m. ET] At some point today, a suspect tried to get out the back door of the cabin, but he was pushed back inside, U.S. Marshals Service district chief Kurt Ellingson told CNN's Brian Todd.

We're still waiting for details about the fire at the cabin, which began about an hour ago.

[Updated at 9:14 p.m. ET] Earlier, we reported that U.S. Marshals Service district chief Kurt Ellingson told us a suspect tried to get out the back door of the cabin at some point today and was pushed back inside. But there are now conflicting reports about whether the suspect ever emerged.

Ellingson says authorities are not sure whether the suspect came out.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/1...hat-ex-lapd-officer-dorner-sighted/?hpt=hp_t1

 

[BE46ST]

I believe you're reading it the way you see fit.

I'm reading it the only way I can see it. If you wrote it to a different meaning please explain

 

[gaprider0]

They never wanted him o get out alive

 

[Cobalt 60]

Whoever was allowing this practice should be sued, tough to prosecute a cop if he is following orders, which this appears to be so because both cases were similar "shooting without any warning"

I have not looked into this aspect at all, but I think in the end there won't be any order to shoot on sight, but rather just some cops who were badly trained and shot up vehicles in panic or to try and score a "righteous kill". But only time will tell!

 

[Jack Straw]

Waco Texas 1993

 

[Mtber1172]

I'm reading it the only way I can see it. If you wrote it to a different meaning please explain

I believe I've clarified my stance when engaging others here. You choose to twist it or ignore it to suit your own needs as you wish.