Andy9o8

Well, yeah.

The word "Johnson" is sometimes abused, too. Life's funny that way. Just sayin'. OK time to hit shower.

Excellent point! That was the problem with the Alien and Sedition Acts - everyone was born on Earth; so no real aliens! I think.

I think I make a reasonable point in post #8 above, when I describe the policy reasons for the new trend of laws - to eliminate the long-standing open season on women in "domestic" cases. But you're also correct that it can be abused on someone's say-so. The key is to strike the appropriate balance, without creating a new problem - not to just cross our arms across our chests and simply refuse to address the old problem, under the childish mantra of "Duh...why do we need new laws?" (not referring to you, Andy)

It's quite obviously a "guess", because it's wrong. That's obvious, too.

They're not "my" rules of engagement, genius. Assuming you mean "you're", No. I've never remotely suggested anything of the kind. I realize in the non-complex thought processes of the gamer-world inside your head there are only "teammates" or "opponents", but in the real world it really doesn't work that way.

Don't quit your day job.

In fairness, asshole college rommates will drive you nuts enough to kill.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/dorner-manhunt-highly-incendiary-hot-gas-used-on-cabin.html Marc, I posted this 5 posts ago. You're getting slow, old man.

I'm surprised you'd take this tack. Have you read the entire thread? In summary, sometimes a suspect leaves no further practical choice than deadly force. I've practiced quite a bit of criminal defense and constitutional law, so believe me, I'm quite sensitive to "due process" and "rule of law" issues. Also please read my most recent post above re: the cops' attempts to gas him out, etc.

Looks to me like they tried other means and methods before the end of it: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/dorner-manhunt-highly-incendiary-hot-gas-used-on-cabin.html Yes, I know the info is supplied by the police; but I'm not really in the mood to entertain consipracy thinking today.

I'm open minded. How so?

I have a wonderhog older than that, in great condition...but who wants to jump a round reserve anymore? Chuck Norris jumps a 24' twill flat as a main. And he deliberately retro-fitted it with acid mesh just to make a style statement.

Why water? Why not beer? Fill a tanker with brewskie, hose it in there, get him drunk, he falls asleep, game over.

Careful, boy. You're easing into middle age - gonna tear a rotator cuff stre-e-e-tching like that.

I understood that to mean that there was a firefight at the rear of the home when he tried to escape out of the back and he was "pushed back" with returning fire. Exactly. The conspiratorial rhetoric is really thick in here today.

Not to diminish the factual accuracy of what you observed, but I think it's irrelevant to US law or society. Just because things are worse elsewhere doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be better in the US. (If ever a sentence invited dozens of comparative analogies, the last one does.)

When the rebubs stop droning on about the stuff on monica's dress.

One option: The attacks will stop when the department states the truth about my innocence, PUBLICLY!!! I will not accept any type of currency/goods in exchange for the attacks to stop, nor do i want it. I want my name back, period. That's not an option. This isn't a Rambo movie. Aside from not negotiating with an armed fugitive murderer, it doesn't address the time-exigency. Totally unrealistic.

Next thing you know, the son of a bitch will be standing on an aircraft carrier in front of a sign saying, "mission accomplished". What a tool.

Even if that's what happened at the cabin - and again, we don't know if Dorner or the cops started the fire, I'd point out, again, that the line had been crossed to use deadly force without further notice or attempts to apprehend the suspect. At that point, it's just a matter of method. That being the case, I have no problem with the method being one to minimize the further risk to LEOs by destroying the building in order to kill the suspect inside, as opposed to incurring the risk of an assault by personnel. This was "combat" rules of engagement. Had they had military-grade explosive munitions on hand, I'd have been fine with them using those, too. Only problem with "combat" rules of engagement is that LEO are not military and citizens, are not enemy combatants. We are a nation of laws. Laws like due process. We also have the 4th amendment. Burning the building down around this particular suspect was not the last course of action. If the suspect is attempting to flee, then there is definitely rational for using deadly force. No one will deny that.... Burn the guy out...does not really pass the sniff test. To be reasonable, what would you have proposed? Waiting him out? What if he escaped? It was a cabin out there in the woods. What if he tunneled out? What if it was a pre-planned, pre-prepared escape cabin that he had previously fitted-out with a tunnel? What if he'd pre-prepared the area around the cabin with mines or IEDs? Lots of "what ifs", to be sure; but at some point the LEO commanders have to be able to make the decision "we need to end this now".

Or else he'll be fired for defying orders. They might not be able to, SP, since he's an elected official. And contextually, it might actually be that his request was for the Commission to provide the funding; so it might not be construed as disobedience of an order. And there's also the question: who does the Sheriff of Shelby County report to, other than the citizens? I haven't looked it up here, but most elected officials in most jurisdictions in the US usually can only be removed via impeachment or recall election.

Even if that's what happened at the cabin - and again, we don't know if Dorner or the cops started the fire, I'd point out, again, that the line had been crossed to use deadly force without further notice or attempts to apprehend the suspect. At that point, it's just a matter of method. That being the case, I have no problem with the method being one to minimize the further risk to LEOs by destroying the building in order to kill the suspect inside, as opposed to incurring the risk of an assault by personnel. This was "combat" rules of engagement. Had they had military-grade explosive munitions on hand, I'd have been fine with them using those, too.

Magazine-size issue aside, I'm surprised that such clumsy (and obviously vulnerable-to-rebuttal) language survived the incredibly intense vetting and re-re-re-writing process that results in the final version of any and every modern SOTU speech.

I understand the victims will get paid. My concern is that the perpetrators of a criminally negligent shooting will not be charged with what was very clearly an unjustifiable assault simply because they're under the protective cloak of the LAPD. Blues, Dave Mmm, that remains to be seen. Everyone in the US has this under a hi-powered microscope.