He was brandishing... eyeglasses! That is an executable offense!

it's tradition.

He was shot because he didn't show his hands, he had already stabbed a Miami-Dade detective transporting him, and he had just got done burglarizing a home, cops didn't know if he had a weapon or not.

Was he holding a gun with his dick?

his hands were concealed and he refused to show them, he had also burglarized a home, the cops didn't know if he had a weapon or not.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/16/us-usa-crime-texas-idUSBRE91F06F20130216

Did you even bother to read the story?

This is called acting as judge, jury and executioner. It is ethically indefensible and should result in, at least, a trial.

We'll see how long you last while you ensure that what the suspect is concealing is a gun and wait for his answer if he is indeed going to shoot you.

Do you think that becoming a police officer absolves you from all moral and ethical boundaries just because you are afraid?

In your world what need for those quaint institutions of due process and trial?

Not showing hands would be one. No reason to risk cop lives. All the fugitive had to do was surrender.

This makes disobeying a police officer a capital crime without trial, judge, jury or defense.

Do you regard those institutions outdated? Do you think that they are not suitable for todays modern connected society? Perhaps you should ensure that the police are given large motor cycles and huge eagle shoulder pads.

Start F'n well thinking, not just spouting the pap you have peen sold by Hollywood.

Should the cop wait until a gun is drawn? If you don't want to be shot by cops, put up your hands. In that situation, it is not too much to ask. Who said you have to obey whatever the cop tells you to do? Well, maybe you should, when you are a known dangerous fugitive and the cop thinks you are willing to kill them. How many dead cops do you wish us to go through? It costs taxpayer money to train them.

The cops have other options open to them especially as the stopped (but not detained or subdued) man was only a suspect closely matching the description of the wanted man. Yes, it might have been more dangerous to use these other options - but that is why you have the police and not just vigilantes.

You ask how many dead cops do I want to see, the answer is none.

However you must answer how many look-alikes and 70 yo Latina women are you willing to see shot to ensure that no policeman is harmed?

he had burglarized a home? Did you forget about the part where he refused to show his hands? Did you forget about the part where he had already stabbed and injured a Miami-Dade cop?
What were they supposed to do? Wait until he started shooting if he had a gun?

If he wanted due process, maybe he shouldn't have stabbed a cop and escaped.

Interesting idea that, be sure to recommend it to the Supreme Court. Yes that is sarcasm

Is burglary a capital crime. I do not dispute that the man was a criminal but many people are criminals, indeed nearly everyone has broken a law at sometime. Do you think that allows those people to be shot?

Equally the man was stupid, but if stupidity was a capital crime then many Tea Partiers should be executed.

What's your experience as a Police Officer? Not trying to be insulting, I just want to know what your experience is in dealing with violent felons?

never has had any contact with law enforcement to have any understanding of what this type of encounter is like.

because I asked a tough question and s/he couldn't answer it.
Or I hurt their feelings.

for sure.

So how am I supposed to take that? As a threat or as a friend?

is probably no great loss...

Not quite sure how to take Kingofalldems post to me, sounds like a threat but I'm not sure.

person bent on killing them by evidence that he had already injured a policeman, is a few seconds after that person has already fired a few rounds at them. How would you like to have that as a career? How many more policeman would die and leave their spouses and children alone? Lets keep in mind this guy was already convicted for a crime and he had escaped from prison custody. He wasn't a free citizen. He wasn't a "suspect" or "person of interest".

I often wonder how many who constantly fault the police have police experience or experience in dealing with violent criminals. I'm not saying that they can't have an opinion, just wondering if they have any idea of what a police officer goes through day after day.

Am I allowed to do that, K&R on a post?

I don't know anything about this particular case but many mentally ill suspects don't do what they are told by police. There has to be a better way to apprehend these people without killing them with no evidence that they are armed.

This guy was a sexual predator already in jail in FL., he was being transported to NV for another crime.
I'm kinda wondering why they didn't use their tasers to subdue him, or maybe they did and it wasn't reported in the news.
I wasn't there so I don't know the full circumstances of why he was shot, so I won't second guess the officers on scene at this point.

...some idiots are worried that suspects (particularly the mentally ill) would deliberately obstruct their airway with the glue fired by the gun.

When you're a violent escaped felon who stabbed a police officer, burglarized a home and when confronted refused to obey police commands.

Which means, you're assumed to be armed, unless you can prove you are not, by putting up your hands and/or lying on the ground splayed out.

Some people here seem to live up in towers with absolutely NO understanding about what the real world is like, what happens or what the rules are.

I'm not great at it myself, but I seem to know more then a lot of people around here, and that's pretty sad.

A couple of people on this thread remind me of those that were saying that the police denied Mr. Dorner of his due process right.
These people have no idea of what the right to due process is.

hate cops so much they lose all ability to think ( If they had it in the first place), or think that because you're an "oppressed" (whether real or imagined) minority, that gives you the right to go around shooting people. (yea I saw excuses like that)

Then there were the rational few. Few being the operative word.

Really disappointing.

Personally I prefer they not leave dangerous escaped criminals or rampaging mass murdering cops on the loose and appreciate when they risk their lives to contain these types.

It was killing without evidence or any reason except, possibly, that they were scared. When reported from other countries it is called extra-judicial murder and the cops that do it are often referred to as members of death squads

Who knew we are a country full of death squads. That apply to Jimmy Lee Dykes too?

I'm afraid I do not believe that. In the case of Dorner there was evidence he was armed, he was "entrenched" and the officers had real reason to fear.

However during the manhunt of Dorner the police acted irresponsibly and in a way that endangered the lives of the innocent. That has to be addressed and in a just society the officers acting irresponsibly should be, at the least, disciplined.

And of course the cops who shot up the wrong people in the wrong cars are going to be disciplined. That is obviously a mess up and is frankly incompetent.

The police do a valiant job and most are honest just attempting to do their best but ...

Many live in a culture without any limits on their actions. They feel that, because they are called upon to be brave on a daily basis, they can commit actions that would mean those not of the police would be incarcerated. In this case the action was to kill a man because he did not obey an order.

he had burglarized a home, he refused to show his hands, he had already shown a propensity for violence by stabbing a cop, the shooting will almost certainly be ruled a justifiable homicide.

By this argument the National guard at Kent state were just poor fuzzy bunnies stopping vile criminals disturbing the peace. By this same logic the police at Danziger Bridge were justified in shooting unarmed people trying to escape the floods.

Ever thought of posting in some other forum?

And yes, when a violent felon, who stabbed a police officer in the act of escaping and is considered armed and dangerous, then if he presents an immediate threat to LE, deadly force can be used, and this violent escapee was an immediate threat to LE by not obeying their commands.

you do support the abandonment of due process.

BTW what do you take as an insult? The fact that you are spouting some seriously authoritarian nonsense does lead me to assume that, perhaps DU is not your best choice of forum.

I also support not getting injured or killed by a violent felon who has already shown that he will injure or kill to escape custody, who refuses to obey lawful commands.

You don't even know the meaning of the word authoritarian if your attaching it to what I've been saying here.

And you little comment about posting on another forum is uncalled for. Luckily I have a thick skin.

I'll ask again, what's your experience in dealing with violent felons? How many years have you been in LE?

You keep saying things about denying due process, but you don't back it up with any reference to any relevant rulings.

Do you seriously believe the issue of police use of deadly force has never been before the Supreme Court? Do you seriously believe there are no relevant rulings in this area?

Or do you believe that it's all about your personal gut feeling abou whether an action is or is not constitutional?

and a dislike of LE, not the law.

Now where have I heard that before? Hmmm.

You just answered my earlier question and I will act accordingly.

Act any way you want.

And oh yeah, I will not ignore you.

You have a good day.

I'll go and delete that post.

man was a wanted, violent fugitive who had sworn never to go back to jail, who had burglarized a home where he could easily have obtained weapons and then refused to show his hands upon command. You're right - no evidence whatsoever.

Being violent does not void your right to trial. Having the vague possibility of having a gun is not grounds to be executed. Not seeing something is not evidence, if it was not seeing you with the Cullinan Diamond would be grounds to imprison you. If any of this was true then there would be few court trials and those that did take place would result in acquittals.

you obviously have no understanding of what the term "evidence" is. As to your specious claims about lack of due process, go back and read jberryhill's answer #28 to you. Nothing in the way this was handled by the police violated Morales' Due Process rights. As to his 'day in court', he effectively debarred himself by his own actions.

...that he could hold the cops at bay by pretending he had a weapon. And just maybe he realised what probably happens to sex offenders who are stupid enough to attack prison guards.

Please tell us. EXACTLY WHAT THE FUCK SHOULD THEY HAVE DONE? In multiple posts you have excoriated the behaviour of police, without once suggesting how they might move from a standoff to a court of law.

Go on, you've told us often enough what they shouldn't have done. Tell us what they should have.

And if you don't know what death squads really do, do some bloody research, don't cheapen the life and death struggles of entire peoples, by equating their situation with that of a violent CONVICTED RAPIST.

Begin with a taser perhaps?

Bean-bag round?

Pepper spray?

Put rounds in his legs?

Call back up and take him down by brute force?

All of the above?

Now look at the rant you post at the end, by this argument just execute all rapists.

The police are not executioners nor should they be

do you?

Do the police have no other options except killing?

Are they not allowed to use tasers or bean-bags or pepper spray or call for back up? Can they never show initiative or take risks? Must every hunt where the quarry is not obviously helpless end with the death of the quarry?

Now let me throw this your way - what if they had mistaken the identity of the person they shot, would that person have been killed justifiably?

You keep ignoring the fact that this was a violent escaped felon who had already stabbed a police officer, burglarized a home, when confronted, refused to obey police commands and officers felt their safety was in immediate danger, from what I've read so far, it was a justifiable homicide and will probably be ruled so by the DA.

Yes, police officers are allowed and do use tasers, but unlike what you see on teevee, they're not always effective, and 99% of fugitive apprehensions are violence free.
This violent, convicted sexual predator was not denied his due process right by the police, this violent convicted sexual predator was denied his due process right by himself by not obeying lawful police orders.

Now, how solid was the ID? Did they hold the guy up and compare him to a picture? Of course not and if they had done they would have been in breach of procedure! Their duty was to apprehend a criminal and anyone in that vicinity who matched the description would have been challenged and that would have been in accordance with procedure.

They saw someone who looked like the person sought. They had no chance to confirm the identity but they challenged as required. They sought to have the suspect render himself helpless bu revealing if he held any weapons. That suspect did not comply. Now if the suspect had been the wrong man and not a speaker of English, would the officers still have been justified in shooting?

Next you reveal you prejudice, because you admit that tasers could have been used but excuse the failure on the grounds that

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what due process means in the case of a violent suspect. Due process does not mean police have to let you put their lives in danger.

The Supreme Court has ruled on this in the Garner case. If the suspect is a violent and dangerous suspect, they have the right to shoot him after some warning is given and the suspect does not comply. That IS due process in this situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

-------------
Here is some more text from Garner:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where

Page 471 U. S. 12

feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.


-------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

'Due process' is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.

Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings (see substantive due process), so that judges - instead of legislators - may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. This interpretation has proven controversial, and is analogous to the concepts of natural justice, and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions. This interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government must not be unfair to the people or abuse them physically.

United StatesMain article: Due Process Clause
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Clauses as providing four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights

I was hoping that s/he would find it for themselves, but I was wrong.
Thanks.

Not generally available on someone half hidden in a ditch.

Pepper spray has range issues.

Deliberately shooting extremities is absolutely verboten for multiple reasons.

Storm the ramparts. Keep going over the bodies of your mates. Even a stick is a nasty weapon and a stick grounded at one end can take down a charging lion or razorback.

No, just those rapists (and any other violent criminals) who through their own behaviour demonstrate their willingness to do anything, up to attempting murder and then playing chicken with armed cops, to avoid the just consequences of their actions. And guess what? He got EXACTLY what he wanted. He'll never spend another night in jail.

All he had to do was SHOW HIS BLOODY HANDS. And you cannot put his inaction down to ignorance. He was a part of the system, he knew the requirement for immediate compliance, AND THE PROBABLE (make that almost certain under the circumstances) CONSEQUENCES of non-compliance. He either chose suicide by cop, or he was terminally stupid.

If he was in a ditch how likely was it he could get away, why was no back-up sought?

If he was half hidden how was it possible be sure they could kill him? If he there was enough visible to be shot there was also enough at which to attempt one, or several, taser shots.

Why was there no attempt made at another method?

Sharp sticks can take down a razorback? Yup, in specially designed traps or, if they are spears, in the hands of someone who knows how to use a spear or, if they are arrows fired from composite bows and tipped with steel arrowheads, by someone with a bow and who knows how to use it. Are you saying this vicious murderer was a supercriminal? In which case they should have sent for the Batman.

...he PRETENDED TO HAVE A WEAPON.

He might not have been able to get away. However, he had just burgled a house which made it perfectly plausible that the thing/weapon he was pretending to conceal was a firearm.

Suicide by cop or terminal stupidity.

stabbed a police officer

burglarized a home

when confronted refused to obey police commands.

They have every right to assume he was armed. When he refused to obey commands, they hand every right to shoot him.

You live in a glass tower.

and not complying with orders from the police.

but just some random drunk. Should his failure to obey order still result in his death?

If you think that could not happen then think about the 2 Latina ladies who suffered because they were mistaken a murdering cop killer.

Police are supposed to use violence as a last resort.

Given that this guy had just stabbed someone and the cops were treating him as dangerous, it's very possible this was reasonable.

We don't have a complete breakdown as to what happened. If he sat in one place on the ground and they shot him, that's a crime. If he ran at them after being told to stop, probably a legit shooting.

Last resort ...

In recent cases has violence been truly only the last resort?

Very squishy term, of course.

that, even although he refused to show his hands upon a legitimate command that they could safely ignore that and proceed to try and arrest him. Imagine for a second if he had a weapon. How many dead cops can you imagine?

BTW, let's not play the game of "just imagine". Remember, if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon.

Just imagine mistaken identity and the guy they see is you. Just imagine that you move your hands too fast or not quickly enough.

The fact is that the officers in this case did not even try methods that could have ended the episode with a live suspect.

How do you know that this violent escaped sexual predator didn't attack the police?
You and I can imagine all we want, we weren't there and I won't second guess the on scene officer's until different evidence comes out saying that they were wrong.

and that made no mention of any attempt to use those methods ...

Or would they have kept that secret?

It's not like the news reports are always complete or accurate.

So now you're willing to believe the police account?

I might infer that the officers were too scared to follow procedure correctly i.e. detain and subdue the suspect; but for whatever reason they did not try those other methods and a man died. If you were religious you might be at least a little sad that the criminal was given no chance to repent of his evil - or did he lack free will and so ordained to go to hell?

keep talking.
You're digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.

Come on, expose us to your expert knowledge, blind us with your wisdom ... actually respond with something other than assertion.

But I ask too much ...

not going down that road, but I think it's safe to say that I am more educated in police procedure and court cases involving police use of force.

I did stay in a Holiday Inn once.

out of his hands with one, clean shot (I saw Randoph Scott do it so it must be true). It's painfully obvious that you have zero experience with police and actual police procedures. You need to stop watching so much TV and get acquainted with how things in the real world operate. Police are only required to use reasonable methods, not the best possible hypothetical method.

The officers did not even consider alternative methods.

They shot a man for failing to obey orders. You do always obey orders, don't you?

They shot a man in partial concealment so they did not even have a firm ID.

They were lucky, the person they shot was the one sought. On another day it could be you, or your wife, or your father, or a friend who is a little deaf.

The cops knew who he was, you think they didn't have pictures of him?
The more you talk, the more you reveal that you have no idea of police procedures.

police procedures.

which, in my opinion, is an honest question to ask as s/he seems to questioning police procedures and law without any knowledge.

The police had pictures of Dorner - did that stop them shooting at the wrong people?

The police thought they knew what vehicle Dorner was driving - did that stop them shooting up the wrong vehicle?

Do the police take pictures out of their wallet, or off a computer screen, before they try to apprehend a criminal? No they see someone who looks like the person they want, they act to challenge that person and to stop them. Once the suspect has been subdued then they have the chance to safely examine pictures.

Where do you get your idea about police procedure, Hollywood? Tee-Vee?

the more you prove that you have no education on police procedures or the law governing police officers.
Hollywood, TeeVee?

and say where you get your knowledge.

Not going down that road. But suffice to say, I'm very well educated in police procedures and court cases involving the use of force by LE.

Been arrested and in court a lot, have you?

You are not a policeman, a lawyer, a paralegal or a trained journalist. So what else are we to think?

but you go ahead and think what you want to.