Dallas shooting!

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

You can't make an offensive comment and brush it off with 'no offense'. You have your own opinion and other people have theirs. If you don't agree that is your choice but there is no need for the tone you are using.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

You're 100% correct, you can't explain some things to some people. Which is why I keep having to say the same thing over and over again.

You keep ignoring the statement by police that at some point during the negotiation period, the shooter engaged them at least once. And that despite being cornered, he still retained the means, intent, and ability to continue killing. Lethal force is justified at that point, and the method of delivery for said force is, legally, largely irrelevant.

Only by ignoring the above three factors, which you and zero hedge quite happily do, can one argue that he was denied due process. Somehow your brain equates "cornered" with "no longer a threat." Anybody remotely familiar with nature would know how wildly inaccurate that theory is.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: Xcathdra

No offense, but that is one of the dumbest things I have ever read here in this forum.

Due process applies everywhere at all times.

No it actually doesn't.

"Procedural Due Process" has plenty of case history to back it. When you use the the word "all" it shows your ignorance of the law and "Due Process".

Reminder and ATS Motto: " Deny Ignorance"

If someone being the (Gunman) is depriving people of their lives.......................especially if the shooter ignores verbal commands, doesn't surrender, and is still a threat to other people, including himself the police have a right to neutralize the threat.

If the suspect or perp surrenders, and is taken into custody right at that moment "due process" starts.

a reply to: Realtruth

Graham v Connor and Tennessee v Garner also support your assertion. So much so that the former throws out the notion of the due process clause being used to look at the reasonableness of force used, and states the 4th amendment is the prevailing measuring stick.

But shhhh

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

Due process does not apply to crimes in progress.

In the US -

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.[17] 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.

When the police kill a person in the course of a police action the person is considered seized under the 4th amendment. That seizure can be used in a civil rights violation action if the officer's actions were not justified.

A violation of due process can only occur after the fact (custody). This suspect killed / shot police and civilians. He was cornered and the police spent over 2 hours attempting to peacefully end the situation with no further loss of life, whether that life is an officers or the suspects.

Over those 2+ hours every opportunity was provided to the suspect to peacefully end the encounter. The suspect declined to end the situation peacefully and was fully intent o killing more officers. The action was taken to end the suspects life and the method chosen was taken to reduce the possibility of any more officers being killed.

Due process does not apply to crimes in progress.

No since speeding is technically an infraction and not a misdemeanor nor a felony. Now, if the driver was behaving in a manner that resulted in the death (a crime - misdemeanor / felony) of other drivers / threat of death / serious physical injury on the road then his "speeding" would be just one of many elements that would go into a decision to end the drivers life in order to protect the public at large from the drivers deadly actions. Its one reason the US Supreme Court ruled pit maneuvers as lawful however classified it as a use of deadly force.

Prior to law enforcement using a pit maneuver the presence of law enforcement in fully marked vehicle with emergency lights and sirens activated is a signal to the suspect driver that he is to pulll over and stop his vehicle. Just as the police negotiated for 2 hours with the shooter, the police pursuing the suspect driver is also a negotiation of sorts in that they are telling the driver to stop his vehicle immediately. If the drivers refuses to stop and his actions place the public at large in danger of serious physical harm and or death then the drivers life can be ended in the protection of public safety.

Ending the life of a driver acting in the manner I laid out is not a violation of his due process. Just as ending the shooters life was not a violation of his due process.

Respectfully if you are going to provide a counter argument you must compare apples to apples and not apples to the sub a arctic whooping cow.

Due process does not apply to crimes in progress.

a reply to: Shamrock6
a reply to: Realtruth

Well said by both.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
...and states the 4th amendment is the prevailing measuring stick.

What about the 8th?

Is C4 on the use of force continuum? Is there a policy that allows it?

Does the ATF permit the use of explosives for "rendering harmless" in that use permit DPD has?

Otherwise, you can use Graham to justify a mini-gun strike from a police helo during misdemeanors. There is obviously a bright line somewhere - otherwise why not just send the robot in with a Molotov and burn the guy to death? Or a WP grenade? Or a chainsaw?

If it's "GvC gives us a free hand to do whatever we want to any extent we want no matter what we choose to do in all circumstances- you commit a crime and we can toss a child through a wood chipper for jaywalking" then I propose that amazing lack of boundary either isn't real and is being glossed over ATM, or it needs immediate resolution.

And "well, we wouldn't do that" just met its white crow. They just did.

I'm not the only one who thinks this smells funny.
Due Process? A Drone Was Used To Blow Up A US Citizen Without Trial This Week.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner
zerohedge thinks everything smells funny.
That is its raison d'etre.

a reply to: Bedlam

Law Enforcement, just as a civilian, can use what ever is appropriate in defending themselves and others. A use of force / subject resistance control continuum does not spell out what weapons can and cannot be used. Departmental operating guidelines can define what weapons can and cannot be used and in all cases those guidelines can be waived by command staff dependent on the situation.

As was done in this case when the Chief ordered swat to get creative with a solution to end the encounter. When they came up with the use of C4 the Chief approved it and the only guideline he issued was not to bring the building down.

The suspect was given every opportunity to end the situation peacefully and opted not to. His due process was not violated when law enforcement ended the stand off.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
I'm not the only one who thinks this smells funny.
Due Process? A Drone Was Used To Blow Up A US Citizen Without Trial This Week.

Only if they knew what they were talking about.

Due process does not apply to crimes in progress and several people have spelled out why using Supreme Court rulings.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Bedlam

Law Enforcement, just as a civilian, can use what ever is appropriate in defending themselves and others. A use of force / subject resistance control continuum does not spell out what weapons can and cannot be used.

I still think the 8th is going to put a limit on that. But if, in fact, LEOs can just take a car and crush someone to death for not negotiating, then it's time to establish a boundary.

If you're being actively shot at, shooting back is just ducky. But somewhere in there, there's a limit. If as a LEO you can use a flamethrower on someone who's punchy, or maybe stick icepicks in the eyes of people who are resisting, then it seems plain that you need to have some guidelines. 'whatever is appropriate' is inappropriate.

a reply to: Bedlam

Thus, the court.
Of course, after the fact it doesn't help the person in question much.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bedlam

Thus, the court.
Of course, after the fact it doesn't help the person in question much.

Even as a soldier I couldn't kill people in 'inappropriate ways'. At least not and get caught at it. Which we won't discuss.

If LOAC, ROE and the GC set limits on how you can kill people, I'm a bit queasy with the idea of 'LEOs can 'get creative' with how to kill uncooperative civilians'. Why not some poison gas, for instance? Let's send a message to the evildoers of the world by running the bot in there with a bit of Sarin, or maybe a major vesicant and we can tape the skin sloughing off his face and his eyeballs deflating whilst he kicks around and coughs his lungs out.

a reply to: Bedlam

Let's send a message to the evildoers of the world by running the bot in there with a bit of Sarin, or maybe a major vesicant and we can tape the skin sloughing off his face and his eyeballs deflating whilst he kicks around and coughs his lungs out.

Not allowed in warfare. Just how do you suppose LEO would obtain such?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bedlam

Let's send a message to the evildoers of the world by running the bot in there with a bit of Sarin, or maybe a major vesicant and we can tape the skin sloughing off his face and his eyeballs deflating whilst he kicks around and coughs his lungs out.

Not allowed in warfare. Just how do you suppose LEO would obtain such?

Hey, just ask SWAT to 'get creative'. Plus you've got that whole 'military sharing' program, used to have a LOT of leftovers in Anniston.

'We call this little baby 'the cop killer's nightmare'" : VX - your means to better civilian control.

eta: If nothing else, the local commercial pool place has pressurized chlorine gas in tanks that look a lot like a propane grill tank. And you can make some dandy phosgene out of old Freon. Worse come to worst, you could rig the bot to spray him with some 12M hydrochloric acid or better yet, hydrofluoric. But that's harder to come by.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
I'm not the only one who thinks this smells funny.
Due Process? A Drone Was Used To Blow Up A US Citizen Without Trial This Week.

Only if they knew what they were talking about.

Due process does not apply to crimes in progress and several people have spelled out why using Supreme Court rulings.

Civilians and cops are allowed to kill for self defense or the defense of others. By any means I think. So you can throw a brick and kill a suspect who is threatening with a knife. Due process is after the suspect has been arrested and is in custody and is for the court. Use of lethal force is completely legal, due process will decide if it was a legal killing. If not murder charges will be brought.

a reply to: Bedlam

Respectfully you are trying to compare unrealistic scenarios to A. The shooting and B. a scenario where an individual is using a motor vehicle that is inconsistent with the acceptable legal use of one.

When a person, using the motor vehicle scenario where his driving places others at risk of serious physical injury / death, he is no longer driving a motor vehicle. He is armed with a 2,000+ pound weapon and because of that law enforcement is allowed to use an appropriate level of force to over come the resistance encountered.

If that means using a pit maneuver, or in several cases out of southern California using a sharpshooter from a helicopter shooting and killing the driver to end the encounter, then that is how it goes.

When a person is involved in a life or death scenario, whether police or civilian, any item can be lawfully used as a weapon. Using a weapon / item against a suspect who is no longer a threat can violate the persons civil rights. Law Enforcement is required, by SCOTUS rulings, to use the least amount of force possible and to deescalate as quickly as possible. Continuing a use of force against a suspect who is no longer a threat moves from justified resistance to active assault against the suspect, which in turn can become a civil rights violation.

A due process violation can not occur during a crime in progress.

Some background info -

Truax v. Corrigan (1921) as follows:

“The due process clause requires that every man shall have the protection of his day in court, and the benefit of the general law, a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds not arbitrarily or capriciously, but upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial, so that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society. It, of course, tends to secure equality of law in the sense that it makes a required minimum of protection for every one’s right of life, liberty, and property, which the Congress or the Legislature may not withhold.”

That ruling established -

procedural due process -

Which requires the government to follow certain procedures before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Cases that address procedural due process usually focus on the type of notice that is required of the government or the type of hearing that must be held when the government takes a particular action.

substantive due process -
Courts determine whether the government has sufficient justification for its actions.

and

Civil Rights -
Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community.

The most common legal application of the term civil rights involves the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens and residents by legislation and by the Constitution. Civil rights protected by the Constitution include Freedom of Speech and freedom from certain types of discrimination.

In layman's term law enforcement has what can be essentially called a 1 plus advantage. Law Enforcement is allowed to escalate their use of force to overcome the level of resistance met. In the shooting in Dallas, because it was a deadly force encounter, the police were allowed to use a level of force to end the situation. Whether that was using a gun or C4 attached to a robot, both were legal.

8th Amendment -

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The 8th amendment applies to court rulings and not police. Law Enforcement is a part of the Executive branch and not the Judicial branch and do not determine guilt or innocence.

A police action that is taken that ends in the death of a suspect during a crime in progress is not a due process violation.