The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old February 13, 2013, 08:42 PM   #51
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,070
Depends.. am I an active shooter? Due process is always the goal, but we can't be any more absolute there than we possibly can.
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 08:47 PM   #52
horatioo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2008
Posts: 332
Quote:
BTW, if you did this in Afghanastan you would be a war criminal and would very likely be charged under the UCMJ and put away for a very very very long time.....

Is this really true or up for interpretation?
horatioo is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 08:50 PM   #53
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,703
The UCMJ is a different set of laws than the civilian laws.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 08:54 PM   #54
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
"Depends.. am I an active shooter? Due process is always the goal, but we can't be any more absolute there than we possibly can."
Now that's a good question.
This case might actually be the poster boy for that too.
The people in the houses and vehicles the LE guys shot up a few days ago might very well have returned fire, thinking they were being attacked by criminals, and probably been within their legal rights.
At that point wouldn't they have fit your definition of an active shooter?
It's a troubling question, if i'm innocent, I'm fired on by the police first, and the only way to survive is to return fire, what do I do?
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 08:58 PM   #55
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,703
scrubcedar, that's a question of state law. I know that in Arkansas, it's unlawful to resist arrest, even if the arrest itself is unlawful.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 09:03 PM   #56
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
Thanks Spats. The problem is that throughout this whole thing the police don't seem to have been waiting to respond to the threat, they've been the aggressors instead. What are the rules when it comes to that? Did they violate them whatever they are?
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 09:11 PM   #57
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrubcedar
Thanks Spats. The problem is that throughout this whole thing the police don't seem to have been waiting to respond to the threat, they've been the aggressors instead. What are the rules when it comes to that? Did they violate them whatever they are?
Those questions are much more easily asked than answered. To answer those questions, I would need a great deal of information that does not appear to be available yet.

The simple answer, on a federal level, is "that depends on whether the search or seizure was reasonable." The more complex, and realistic answer: Even once I get the information (if I ever do), I'd need to research all of the applicable state laws, state rules of criminal procedure, and then square it all against a few federal constitutional amendments to see if "the rules were violated."
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 09:27 PM   #58
horatioo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2008
Posts: 332
What agency is responsible to check if the police broke any laws? Would the agencies involved be checking on themselves?

Also, would Dorner's family have much of a chance suing whichever agency started the fire in civil court? (assuming some law agency did start the fire) which like many here have said, who knows exactly what happened.
horatioo is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 09:44 PM   #59
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,703
State police or FBI might look into whether police broke the laws. As for the civil suit, virtually every agency and every officer involved, and then a few extra for good measure, can expect to be named in a civil rights suit by Mr. Dorner's estate. Whether that suit stands any chance of winning is an entirely and, at this juncture, unanswerable, question.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 10:11 PM   #60
GregA
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2012
Posts: 8
If law enforcement were firing on him en masse, could Dorner have realistically been able to return fire? I don't see how that was possible for Dorner from the cover of a house. Law enforcement executed him. Dorner was probably a monster but law enforcement reaction in pursuit (shooting innocent civilians) and apprehension of him was lawless and more troubling than Dorners crime.
GregA is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 10:27 PM   #61
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
State police or FBI might look into whether police broke the laws.



"Might", but won't.



"There were so many of us'

"We were doing what we were ordered to do"

"I just do as I'm told"

"Im not sure who was in charge"




All responsibility is diffused so far that "nobody" is really responsible any more.


And... nobody in a position to investigate really cares. Think that the FBI cares? They never put Lon Horiuchi in prison for shooting the face off of an unarmed woman who was not in a position to harm anyone... they sent him to Waco so he could shoot more people. The bottom line... hate to say it... is that there is no adult supervision of law enforcement that has any credibility any longer. The police get the result they want, and there's nothing at all legally available to stop it.



Willie

.
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 10:39 PM   #62
horatioo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2008
Posts: 332
Quote:
And... nobody in a position to investigate really cares. Think that the FBI cares? They never put Lon Horiuchi in prison for shooting the face off of an unarmed woman who was not in a position to harm anyone... they sent him to Waco so he could shoot more people. The bottom line... hate to say it... is that there is no adult supervision of law enforcement that has any credibility any longer. The police get the result they want, and there's nothing at all legally available to stop it.

What's the solution? Or more to the point what would you suggest I do if I agree with you?
horatioo is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 10:45 PM   #63
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,703
Willie, I only use the term "might" because I do not know exactly what agencies were involved, nor what the state law of the locale says the proper procedure. If state law enforcement won't look into whether laws were broken, I'm sure an industrious plaintiff's attorney will be glad to help them take a look.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 11:14 PM   #64
Ghost1958
Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 86
For the most part this is all just a discussion we already know the answer to.
If you are a cop killer a ice cream cone in the desert in the sun has more chances of reaching a jail cell alive than you do. This guy killed multiple cops
Not in the course of a firefight or arrest but publicly and openly declaring hunting season on them.

He was dead from the first cop he killed, only he was a bit much to handle in the usual way of just shooting him because he was better at killing than they were.
Guy probably was railroaded by his dept. But he was a nut and have no sympathy for him. Killing his lawyers daughter would have taken care of that if I had ever had any in the first place. Which I didnt.

That said he made fools of LAPD, scared them to wetting their pants and shooting civilians, exposed some dirty little not so secret secrets and embarrassed them. Then he killed some of them.

Of course they burned him out. Its plain as day on the tapes. Heck if they didnt get him quick he probably would have slipped out of there as well.

What LE did was wrong as Waco was wrong but I given that one man had a kill ratio of what at that point 4 to 0 in his favor with guns did anyone really expect anything different than burning him out??? I dont condem LE for doing it on the level that as crazy as this sounds they were over matched and were not going to lose any more officers trying to prove they werent.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 11:27 PM   #65
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,657
An interesting point was raised elsewhere - they said they found his wallet with Calid DL that miraculously survived the fire...but they already found his wallet when he tried to escape to Mexico...
Not tinfoil hatting, just two points that don't add up.
I agree wholeheartedly - police cannot be judge/jury/executioner, as much as our popular media try to make it so - how many cop movies have the cop trying to get the bad guy to PRISON? I think one Charles Bronson flick had the bad guy delivered to prison where he found out life was about to get really bad, but most end up being judge, jury and executioner. Now while popular media has zippo to do with real life, many watching the news are indeed conditioned by these same movies to cheer the cops when they end something this way, without critical thinking that other means and ways would have been preferable to maintain the rule of law - the rule of law makes for a terrible movie.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 11:39 PM   #66
Ghost1958
Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 86
I think we can probably trust that if they were not sure it was Dorner we would know because they would want everybody and their grandmother looking for him regardless if they did burn up the wrong person. Self preservation ya know.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 02:31 AM   #67
shaunpain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 519
I do not know what the guidelines for offensive response are in a shootout. How would those guidelines change for a variable such as an RPG or IED devices? If they are using small arms, are police only allowed to respond with small arms? I think we can reason out any hostages inside. Since smokes were popped and LE was firing, I'm sure someone had IR gear and could confirm the number of occupants. If that's NOT what happened, I'd honestly be surprised (and I very well could be when/if it comes out that I'm wrong). I thought that I had the opinion that the police reacted poorly, but after asking myself these questions I really don't know what to think. I'm sure they were terrified and it seemed like the right thing to do at the time.
__________________
"Shut up, crime!"
shaunpain is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 03:58 AM   #68
rc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 605
I'm sure fire as a weapon agains the barricaded person has been the weapon of choice for over 100 years. I find it distrurbing however that in the case of WACO with women and children inside tear gas was deployed and it sarted a fire. The police said, "we didn't start a fire" duh... It seems like this is a pattern where tear gas is deployed and has the "benefit" of starting a fire with deniability.
rc is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 04:55 AM   #69
Ben Towe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,110
I disagree with the use of fire, but if I had been in charge of the operation and had already lost an officer and had another wounded, there is no way I would have risked more officers just to make sure he got "every chance" to surrender. I would have ordered snipers to take him down at the first opportunity.

I'm not sure where anyone has gotten the idea that we should spend massive amounts of money to make sure we don't hurt the killer when we get him holed up somewhere. Starving him out could have taken weeks or months and would have risked lives unnecessarily.
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs
Ben Towe is online now  
Old February 14, 2013, 05:49 AM   #70
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Ben Towe, this goes back to an earlier point - without approaching in some means, either by negotiator (unlikely due to risk) or remote means (robot; dog with harness mounted camera; etc) they could not KNOW that there was no hostage in the cabin.

Without absolutely knowing that, they should have acted as though there were hostages. That rules out burning down the cabin.

In a thread on GD, it was pointed out that they also ran a very real risk of starting an uncontained forest fire.

These are big deals. People are making very light of things they should take very seriously.

Just because it worked out ok, this time, does not mean that this is a tactic we should see employed again. Everybody who gives this incident their tacit approval, will have to shoulder some of the responsibility if this happens again, and if it results in loss of innocent life.
MLeake is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 06:22 AM   #71
Ben Towe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,110
Quote:
Without absolutely knowing that, they should have acted as though there were hostages. That rules out burning down the cabin.
I absolutely agree MLeake, certainly burning it down was stupidly irresponsible, even cruel. I was addressing the undertone I'm feeling here that "police forces shouldn't have used any lethal force at all to prevent them from being judge, jury, and executioner."

FYI, it's very possible that they used thermal imaging equipment mounted on a helicopter to determine the number of people in the cabin... Regardless, burning it down was not brilliant by any means.
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs
Ben Towe is online now  
Old February 14, 2013, 07:30 AM   #72
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Ben Towe, having worked with the MX-15, MX-20, and MTS-A families of aerial thermal imaging sensors, I have to disagree with you. They are good, but they have limitations.

Last edited by MLeake; February 14, 2013 at 09:17 AM.
MLeake is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 10:39 AM   #73
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,107
The morning news had a interview the local sheriff.

1. Burners refer to tear gas grenades that have flames coming out of the back when fired as a propulsive side effect.

2. Yelling about burners refers to firing such.

3. They do set things on fire.

He was shooting at them. Should you be limited in the magnitude of response when someone is shooting at you?

Isn't that different from being passively waiting?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 10:53 AM   #74
horatioo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2008
Posts: 332
Quote:
1. Burners refer to tear gas grenades that have flames coming out of the back when fired as a propulsive side effect.
It is idiotic to call something a burner if it is used in such a way that it can set houses on fire accidentally.

It's like an alcoholic calling liquor crash and burn juice, then sluffing it off as just a innocent phrase when he kills someone.
horatioo is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 10:56 AM   #75
horatioo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2008
Posts: 332
Quote:
He was shooting at them. Should you be limited in the magnitude of response when someone is shooting at you?
As opposed to having no limits on the magnitude of response?
horatioo is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13918 seconds with 7 queries