At what point do we loose our constitutional rights during a crime?

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by flw, Feb 13, 2013.

  1. flw

    flw

    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2012
    Note: this post is about our constutional rights and when they are lost. It is not about "Christopher Jordan Dorner".

    With the current disaster of the "Christopher Jordan Dorner"case, I was wondering at what point, in commission of a crime, do we loose our constitutional rights and who makes the escalation approval, when shoot to kill is issued? Local/State/Federal/or all of the preceding.

    Second is, was a "proportional response" used prior to the tear gas/fire? i.e. You bring a verbal attack. I bring out a knife, you bring our a gun, I bring out a tank... Isn't the "good guy", suppose to stop at some point? Also, why do so many of these types of crimes end in the building catching on fire?


    As a example:
    If true, the BBC reported last night (2-12-13) that L.E. fired tear gas, then a fire began inside and a single shot was fired from inside. Then two bull dozers moved in and pealed the house apart "like a Onion".

    Was this a proportional response? If not, was it murder? If not, what was it?
     
  2. Diesel McBadass

    Diesel McBadass Tactically Epic

    Messages:
    12,877
    Likes Received:
    4,412
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Location:
    Kittery, Maine
    try to flush him out and he kills himself? Sounds good to me. You lose your right when youre murdering people. olice can stop you before you do any more. Its not like he came out with hands up and was hit surrendering, he was engaged in a fight.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013

  3. ray9898

    ray9898

    Messages:
    17,609
    Likes Received:
    8,322
    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Location:
    Georgia
    LE generally has additional justified uses of force under the law.

    For example, in GA everyone can legally use deadly force in defense of them self and others from a threat of death or great bodily harm, to stop the commission of a forcible felony or in defense of habitation.

    LE has an additional exemption that we may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected forcible felon who is known to be armed and a danger to the public.

    Basically, lets say I respond to an armed robbery where the clerk was just shot and I locate the suspect. I am justified in shooting that felon to apprehend him as long as I can show it was reasonable given the crime he committed, the fact he was armed and his actions proved he was a continued danger to the officer and public. He does not have to threaten me directly.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013
  4. jtull7

    jtull7 Pistolero CLM

    Messages:
    6,150
    Likes Received:
    38
    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    At no time does anyone lose his or her constitutional rights. No matter what kind of crime is being committed, the accused still retains his or her constitutional rights.
     
  5. flw

    flw

    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2012
    Keep in mind that L.E. did not and still does not (as of this morning) know who was in that house. It may or may not have been who they were looking for.

    Do we loose rights without even being identified as the person they want?
     
  6. LEOson

    LEOson

    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    Middle America
    And you should keep in mind the cops have their own rights to defend themselves. The guy was actively engaged in a firefight for close to an hour. He was clearly dangerous and they were completely and totally justified in doing what they did. It doesn't matter if he was/is Chris Dorner. He shot and killed a cop and wounded another. Then continued to shoot. How the **** is that not justified use of force for the cops to respond in turn with gunfire?
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013
  7. Glock20 10mm

    Glock20 10mm Use Linux!

    Messages:
    15,639
    Likes Received:
    1,564
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Location:
    Land of Idiots and ********
    Upon conviction in a court of peers. It's covered already. No matter the evidence presented in the court of public opinion, it matters not, it's the court of law and judicial action that determine the loss of ones rights upon conviction. That, no matter how much you like it, is how our nation was founded and is supposed to be run.
     
  8. flw

    flw

    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2012
    As of this morning ,it was not clear if the person in the house was the same person that was involved in the shooting earlier that day.

    So when there is a unidentified person in that house, is it ok to assume it the "right" person?
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013
  9. HarlDane

    HarlDane

    Messages:
    10,127
    Likes Received:
    5,453
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    San Joaquin Valley
    Whoever was in the house was given numerous warnings to come out and had ample time to surrender. They chose not to and instead engaged the officers in a fire fight.

    At that point did it really matter if it was the guy they were originally looking for or another criminal looking to shoot it up with the cops?
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013
  10. LEOson

    LEOson

    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    Middle America
    I don't know how much more clear I need to be. He was being chased by cops. He shoots at them. They shoot back, causing them to chase him to this cabin. They observe him go in. At which point, a massive firefight breaks out with results in one dead deputy and one seriously injured. Gimme a ****ing break. He was the guy they were after because they SAW him go in the cabin and he ****ing shot two cops. Open and shut case. Let him ****ing rot there.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013
  11. TBO

    TBO Why so serious? CLM

    Messages:
    64,691
    Likes Received:
    74,918
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    1504 7th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55454
  12. ClydeG19

    ClydeG19

    Messages:
    7,817
    Likes Received:
    5,449
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Fish much?

    The guy killed 4 people and wounded 2 others. At what point would it be ok with you that LE use deadly force? LE doesn't shoot to kill, we shoot to stop the threat. A suspect's rights (including a right to life) don't end simply because we don't like him. If the shooter surrendered, I have to doubt the deputies would have taken him into custody and not shot and killed him because of some "order." We're professionals like that.

    Second, LE doesn't have to wait until they get punched to use physical force on someone. They can initiate the physical force if the officer can articulate that the person was acting in an aggressive manner and the officer thought a physical altercation with himself or a third party was imminent. That standard applies all the way up the force continuum. If the deputies launched tear gas or whatever it was into the house to attempt to force him out knowing that a fire was a potential outcome, so what? Even if they chose starting a fire in the house as the way to employ deadly force without putting any more innocent lives in danger, so what? The deputies were actively taking fire from the house on and off. It seems to me deadly force would still be applicable.

    Even if the subject wasn't Dorner, if you pile up the charges just from yesterday, you've got 1 count of homicide, 2 counts of kidnapping, 1 or 2 counts of burglary, 1 count of robbery, 2 counts of theft of a means of transportation, and a minimum of 4 counts of aggravated assault. Is that violent enough a felon for you?
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013
  13. LEOson

    LEOson

    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    Middle America
    Well said. I may be a bit more touchy about this subject than most, but...well my username probably gives it away.
     
  14. Comrade Bork

    Comrade Bork

    Messages:
    2,526
    Likes Received:
    367
    Joined:
    May 1, 2001
    Location:
    Georgia
    During the actual time that a criminal is activly threatening "death or grave bodily harm to the innocent" as part of whatever criminal activity he is indulging in, he effectively has NO Rights whatsoever .

    The over-riding concern is to reduce him to a status whereby he is no longer threatening "death or grave bodily harm to the innocent".

    If in so removing the threat he reprents, he happens to die as a result, Tough Sierra Hotel India Tango.

    Removing the threat he represents is the overriding, the only, thing that need concern us.

    If he surrenders and is thus no longer a threat, his "rights" go back to what they were before he offered the threat he offered.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013
  15. czsmithGT

    czsmithGT

    Messages:
    20,615
    Likes Received:
    15,063
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    Yes it is.
     
  16. TX OMFS

    TX OMFS Right wing nut Lifetime Member

    Messages:
    9,442
    Likes Received:
    9,895
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    :puking:

    He's a criminal and died a criminal's death. Let's not get all academic about this.

    Where's Ron Paul and his Paulbots when you need them? Live by the gun, die by the gun...
     
  17. Mayhem like Me

    Mayhem like Me Semper Paratus

    Messages:
    27,774
    Likes Received:
    22,829
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2001
    Location:
    outer rim
    Soo whomever was shooting at them with automatic weapons , killing one deputy and injuring another, lost their right to give up?
    Is this what you are saying?

    From what I understand numerous requests were made for him to lay down weapons and come out with raised hands..

    Are you saying they forced him to stay inside with some type of mind control? Thus keeping him from using his free will?

    FASCINATING!
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013
  18. ray9898

    ray9898

    Messages:
    17,609
    Likes Received:
    8,322
    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Location:
    Georgia
    Two points:

    • They don't have to know beyond a shadow of a doubt. There was plenty enough to for them to be reasonably certain and that is what the law requires their actions to be, reasonable.
    • The person inside that house murdered an officer and shot at other officers who were surrounding the cabin after he fled there. Even if it was not Dorner they were justified in acting the way they did.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013
  19. Leigh

    Leigh

    Messages:
    3,446
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    Joined:
    May 22, 2000
    Location:
    Eastern Kentucky
    Yep, pretty much sums it up....
     
  20. Patchman

    Patchman Florist

    Messages:
    19,896
    Likes Received:
    6,570
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    Land of Flora, Fauna & Merriweather
    Yeah, the identity of the person inside the house who shot from the house, that killed and wounded the LEOs, is secondary.