This message was self-deleted by its author

[quinnox]

This message was self-deleted by its author (quinnox) on Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:14 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[RandiFan1290]

1. Saddam Lover!!

[liberal_at_heart]

2. I remember when the whole country cheered when Bin Laden was dead.

It was so creepy. We are a sadistic species.

[iandhr]

58. Damn right I cheered when Osama bit the dust.

My uncle worked at Two World Trade Center.

What saved his life was VOTING.

September 11 2001 was supposed to be the day of the Democratic Primary for the New York City mayoral election.

[Ed Suspicious]

77. My best friend had his grandmother murdered in broad daylight. His family opposed the death penalty

in that case. They spoke out against it. I'm not sure justice is served by killing a killer.

[MuseRider]

3. I will go with you.

I just don't understand this. My how quickly things change.

[Fire Walk With Me]

4. He murdered! Murder him! The hayl with due process, I want him dayd!

Yeehaw!

[jberryhill]

10. Does the Supreme Court's opinion of the Constitution factor in to your thinking about "due process"?

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/471/1

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 feasible, some warning has been given.

Majority: White, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens

[SidDithers]

15. To some, the Constitution is like the Bible...

they pick and choose which parts are important, depending on how it fits their worldview.

Sid

[jberryhill]

23. True that

It would be handy if we had someone, or maybe a collection of people, who would from time to time visit these sorts of issues and indicate how things do or do not comply with it.

What we might do is to allow people who disagree to appear before those people, and give the strongest argument they can for why it should be interpreted one way or another.

Not only that, but if you still don't like what that group of "Constitution interpreters" said, you were still free to disagree, and to try to come up with different circumstances and arguments that might get them to change their mind.

If only we had thought of that.

[SidDithers]

24. That's a great idea...

you should propose that to someone.

Sid

[jberryhill]

32. How about a majority of the state legislatures?

So that it wouldn't be seen as something being imposed on them by an alien power beyond their control?

[SidDithers]

34. You're just bursting with good ideas today. I like the way you think...

Sid

[beevul]

36. Again, you're trying to cite this court opinion, as if it fits. It doesn't.

"deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape"

If you're going to lean on this court case, you're going to have to show that "deadly force" (setting the fire) was "necessary" (there was no other option) at the time the fire was set.

Its not a blank check.

[jberryhill]

37. No, it's not a blank check

And indeed it was a limitation on a broader Tennessee rule then in effect.

It is the seminal case on the current law in this area, and I gather you do not understand there is a lot of fleshing out of what "necessary" means other than your personal opinion on 30 seconds of review.

On the legal meaning of "necessary" I'd suggest you try McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) for starters.

The irony here, of course, is that you have tried the case without all the facts, now haven't you.

[beevul]

39. Wait...

"The irony here, of course, is that you have tried the case without all the facts, now haven't you."

You and others purport that burning down the cabin was right and proper, and "necessary" to prevent his escape, but I'm the one who "tried the case without all the facts"?


Mkay.

[jberryhill]

46. Yes, that's correct

In fact, you have said that it "can't be shown" that the cops were acting within Constitutional limits - which, by the way, are probable cause driven.

Having authority to act on probable cause is one thing - in fact that is the jumping off point for people saying that Dorner did not receive due process. The Constitution permits the use of deadly force on assessment of probable cause, subject to the conditions noted in Garner.

Your conclusive statements about the guilt of the cops you have deemed guilty, is quite another story in relation to due process.

Whether you consider others to be consistent is not an excuse for your own lack of consistency.

[beevul]

48. Nonsense.

"Your conclusive statements about the guilt of the cops you have deemed guilty, is quite another story in relation to due process."

Nonsense.

This is about arguments you and others have made, that are clearly nonsense. This one, right along with the rest of them.

In plain language, the parties in authority at the scene had other options besides burning the cabin.

They CHOSE not to use them.

Burning a cabin down, with a bad person that some may even percieve as the lowest vile piece of subhuman scum in existence in it, is an unacceptable act to anyone of good consience, and contrary to my view of law enforcement and what law enforcement should and should not be doing. Authority worshipers views on the other hand, may vary.

Clearly, I'm nowhere close to being alone in this belief here on DU. You should perhaps give that some thought.

[jberryhill]

49. I have given it a lot of thought

It is deplorable, and contrary to my conscience and my view of what law enforcement should and should not be doing.

I agree with you completely.

It is an unfortunate fact of our society that what the law condones, and what I condone, are not the same thing. In fact, they hardly ever are.

[heaven05]

90. it

was a lynching. All I had to do was listen to those so called police officers comments to understand what a lynching must have been like in our glorious country's past. And from your comments, I'm thinking you might have been in the crowd and that goes for whole 'kill em', I want to see blood Coliseum crowd here. America is a shameful example of 'democracy and due process.' Drove the man crazy, he retaliates against his perceived enemies and people on here screaming for his blood. Lynch on, this mentality will never die in amerikkka. I can't wait for the Trayvon Martin trial.

[libtodeath]

5. K&R

[Light House]

6. I'm not cheering his death,

but what I am cheering is that this murderer is no longer a threat to society.
Do I wish that he was taken alive to stand trial? Yes, but he had no intention of being taken alive and he CHOSE to end it this way.
He had every opportunity to surrender during his week on the run and his last stand at that cabin, he CHOSE the not to and it ended badly for him.
I won't cheer or dance because he's dead, but I will cheer and dance because he is no longer a threat.

[HappyMe]

12. I agree.

[sibelian]

7. Thank you.

I am sure that this latest tsunami of "emotion trumps everything" will not be the last, but it's good to know that some people remain who can see through it.

[jberryhill]

9. Should emotion trump the law?

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/471/1

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 feasible, some warning has been given.

Majority: White, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens

[jberryhill]

8. "A nation of laws"

Does the US Supreme Court, in your mind, constitute a part of the "rule of law" apparatus of our government?

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/471/1

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 feasible, some warning has been given.

Majority: White, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens

Or is this a nation of "whatever I think the law is"?

[quinnox]

17. regardless of the legalese, the sentiment still applies

It sounds like you are on board with the police and how they handled this. Fine, but some of us see it a little differently, and this OP is more of a reaction to what seems to be as another poster said, an emotional and blood thirsty response to the incident.

[jberryhill]

21. I'm not on board with the police

But you had said something about "a nation of laws".

Now, you say that the law is just "legalese".

Which is it, skipper?

[quinnox]

30. you are not "on board" with the way the police handled it,

but you seem to be arguing their position legally. OK...

[jberryhill]

38. That's correct

I'm not "on board" with all sorts of things which are legal.

Are you one of those people who thinks that everything you like should be legal and everything you dislike should be illegal?

I don't even support the death penalty. Is it legal? You bet. Do I vote for people, when available, who oppose it? You bet.

Unfortunately, the "rule of law" does not mean "everything comes out the way I want." That's kind of what the rule of law is about.

You are arguing for the "rule of Quinnox".

[quinnox]

42. I explained what the reasons for my OP were about

It doesn't seem like you agree with those reasons. Tell me this, forget about the Dorner incident, do you have an argument with the OP in a broader sense and what it says?

[jberryhill]

43. I think bloodthirsty cheering and revenge seeking are odious human tendencies

Do you want to know some other things that are legal?

If I see a blind person wander off the sidewalk into traffic I can, if I want, keep quiet, watch a car kill him, and laugh my ass off about it, if that's the kind of person I choose to be.

My doing so is PERFECTLY legal.

Since your OP said something about a "nation of laws", I thought you wanted to discuss what is legal, not what is right.

Believing that those two things are, or should be, the same thing, is the province of people who actually end up practicing things like "bloodthirsty cheering and revenge seeking." Indeed, one case in point would be Mr. Dorner himself. I would not want to be like him, or those who would cheer on his death.

But when you go saying things about the rule of law, that is another story entirely.

[great white snark]

11. Have you been persecuted in some way again?

The tent is round-there are no corners to find where nobody disagrees with you.

[quinnox]

13. this was originally meant as a response in another forum

but the thread was self-deleted. However, I felt it still could apply as its own thread, when I saw other threads along the same lines being discussed here in general discussion.

[JoePhilly]

14. Yea, that's what is required.

[treestar]

16. straw man

no one said that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. "Each man's death diminishes me, For I am involved in mankind." John Donne

No Man Is An Island

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

John Donne

[liberal_at_heart]

25. that's beautiful! Thank you for posting this.

[LanternWaste]

19. I'd imagine that for every one thousand "good mainstream Democrats" there are also

I'd imagine that for every one thousand "good mainstream Democrats" there are also one thousand definitions as to what a "good, mainstream Democrat" is. That a handful of people may agree on a thing is really little more than a handful of people agreeing on a thing; rather than a de facto indication of mob mentality.

Fundamentals, yes. Yet maybe not quite as obvious as I'd thought...

Weird.

[Dreamer Tatum]

20. Why didn't you post this after they killed Dykes last week? nt

[quinnox]

27. Sorry, didn't know who "Dykes" was until I just googled it

I wasn't following that news story at the time.

[jberryhill]

29. Odd you mention that

See:

Why Didn't Jimmy Lee Dykes Get A Trial?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022321824

[Dreamer Tatum]

31. That was in reference to drone strikes. nt

[geek tragedy]

52. Because Dykes had the wrong politics. nt

[jsr]

22. Wonder what DU would have been like when Rodney King was beaten half to death

The LAPD cheerleaders would have called for him to be broiled at 1000 deg C for 4 hours or what.

[JoePhilly]

26. Sure, that's what would have happened.

[wercal]

35. Not LAPD

I'm not cheerleading anyone...and I actually do not know by what authority the sheriff launched an assault.....but it was not the LAPD. They have their own lawless actions to answer for (or sweep under the carpet)....but I think it is important to be accurate about the cabin assault, which was not LA cops.

[Fire Walk With Me]

85. Yep, it was the sheriffs. I have posted incorrectly regarding that. I've also posted here on DU

that sheriffs are even worse the police. The whole thing gives me the heebie-jeebies.

[geek tragedy]

54. How many people did Rodney King gun down in cold blood?

Poor Dorner is such a victim here. Go light a candle in his memory.

Sorry I can't join the pity party for him.

[iandhr]

64. THANK YOU

[Zoeisright]

67. Me too. The sympathy for that asshole makes me sick.

[Cal Carpenter]

28. Bring it on!!!

Yeeeee-haw!!!!

[HangOnKids]

41. Gee We All Just LURVE Criminals!

Fuck yeah, criminal love here!

[geek tragedy]

53. Yes, and if you think it's acceptable for police to use force against

people shooting at them, you're a bloodthirsty war criminal.

[geek tragedy]

56. No one's defending that action.

We're talking about whether it's okay to use guns and tear gas against a well-armed shooter whose sole purpose is to kill as many cops as possible.

[geek tragedy]

61. Excuse me?

Most liberals do not hate cops. That is not a mainstream Democratic or liberal position.

But, some on the left do hate cops, just like some on the right like Ted Nugent hate cops. The NRA referred to LEO's as "jackbooted thugs."

[geek tragedy]

79. I never said that people who "didn't find the need to wank" supported his actions. nt

[geek tragedy]

82. Actually, the OP--the one that accused people who disagree with him

of being bloodthirsty cowboys--is stirring the shit.

[geek tragedy]

84. Disagreement is to be discouraged? nt

[iandhr]

62. Of course I would have preferred that he was brought in alive to stand trial.

But if a criminal decides that he won't be taken in alive it complicates things.

[iandhr]

68. You might be right. But that wasn't my point.

There is something called suicide by cop.

Dorner probably wanted to die at the hand of the police.

[iandhr]

72. Look I am aware of the history of the LAPD.

Corruption racism etc.

But if I was a LEO and someone was shooting at me I would shoot back.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

40. Especially the 6th and 7th --

Welcome to the New DU -- all vengeance, all the time.

[frylock]

44. welcome to the big tent..

and you can expect more of this mindset as we celebrate the demise of the republican party, and welcome their so-called moderate exiles into our fold.

[EastKYLiberal]

45. Having compassion for murderers and rapists?

No thanks.

[backscatter712]

47. Nuance is hard. n/t

[cali]

50. and the OP certainly reflects a lack of nuance.

[geek tragedy]

51. Alternate title post: People who disagree with me are bloodthirsty revenge

seeking cowboys.

It always amazes me when bad guys start firefights with cops, lose said firefight, and then some on the left decry the violation of his rights because he lost the firefight.

[iandhr]

74. Ding Ding

This was suicide by cop.

These wackos shoot at cops so the cops will fire back and shoot them dead.

[ReRe]

57. I'll take it too

... what happened to our country of "laws?" It's like GWB did tear up the Constitution. As far as I know, Civics is not taught in high schools anymore. Everyone seems to be History illiterate. Maybe that's what's wrong, quinnox? Yeah, we're all vigilante wild wild west again, because it seems our system of laws are not enforced. And Hell, there's two sets of damn laws, one for Wall Streeters and Corporates, and one for the rest of us. Our institutions have all broken down, no one has any use for the Constitution with it's Bill of Rights, our society seems to be cracking right down the middle. Well, I won't be going to any public lynchings, or modern-day burnings at the stake and cheering "Rah". Nope, ain't goin' there... Democrat till the day I dee, with my little copy of the Constitution in my cold dead hands.

[geek tragedy]

59. So, Chris Dorner was lynched, huh?

I guess he should get his own civil rights museum, and get put in the history books alongside Emmett Till.

[ReRe]

76. Respectfully....

Wasn't Dorner a Veteran? Yes he was. Did he have a serious case of PTSD? No doubt. Was he an American citizen? Yes, he was. What happened to Dorner had NOTHING to do with the fucking color of his skin. But you just made it an issue, didn't you? He was already dead when they torched the place. If he was already dead, why did they have to make a big production with the burning? Were they scared that he was still alive? This whole event looks like it turned into a man thing. He got the last word by killing himself, and they wouldn't have it. So they killed him again, so they would have the last word. But it probably had something to do with destroying evidence, too. I'm not defending Dorner. I'm defending what I thought we had: a civilized country with a system of Laws.

[geek tragedy]

78. Just going by your use of the word 'lynch'

He apparently shot himself after the fire started, when he realized he was caught between the fire and the cops.

[Zoeisright]

66. Completely wrong.

Here's reality: someone uses deadly force against the police, they are perfectly within their rights to use deadly force against them.

That's the way things work in the real world.

[Cali_Democrat]

69. What happened to this place?

The Dorner thing? Well that guy probably fired at cops during the siege and deserved to be taken out. I got no problem with that. '

But the support for drones here? WTF?

Also the thread about a guy summarily executing a suspected drunk driver is getting cheers from DUers?

WTF happened to this place?

[stonecutter357]

73. Trolls

And Shills.

[patrice]

71. I'm confused. I've been given to understand here that "means you are on the far RIGHT fringe". nt

[99th_Monkey]

80. How dare you actually CARE about this quaint notion of "laws".

That is SO yesterday. What ARE YOU anyway? Some kind
of time traveler from the last century? Get real dude.

Laws, Shmaws. Who needs 'em.. NOW we got paid killers
with guns on corporate payrolls, we got drones, SWAT teams
well seasoned from the War on Drugs, we got 100% saturation
survailence, etc. Now we just cut to the chase and murder
them. It's so much cheaper than giving them 3 hots and a
cot for the rest of their sorry lives.

[NCTraveler]

86. So now one must have sympathy for a gun loving, cold blooded murderer,

seeking to take justice into his own hands, all while killing innocent people to be a good main steam Democrat now?

Who Knew?

See how that works?

[quinnox]

88. Look, nowhere in my OP does it even hint at sympathy for Dorner

And I think there is some heavy irony in seeing the posts that bogusly claim that is what it means, especially when you see they were posted after devilgrrrls prescient post #33.

Having said that, I get your point in that the OP is perhaps a tad flame-baity. So I am considering self deleting it for that reason.

[NCTraveler]

89. You do get the point. Sorry if it was rude. I see how it came off that way.

[quinnox]

92. I'm self deleting this because

I feel the OP is somewhat flame-baity, and regardless, will no longer lead to good discussion at this point.


Here is the text of the original OP for those interested:


So one must be a bloodthirsty cheering and revenge seeking (View all)

frontier justice cowboy to be a good mainstream Democrat now?

Who knew?

If being for a nation of laws, instead of a mob mentality "Hang 'em now" justice, means you are on the far left fringe, I'll take it.