What "due process" does not mean:

[Egalitarian Thug]

148. That's exactly what I wrote about in the initial reply, contorting the facts to fit

what we want. His rights are not dependent on his choice any more than they are granted by the Constitution. Almost any human being wants to have the Dorners killed, that is completely understandable. But going down that roads leads to a variety of bad ends and that's exactly why we have the requirement of the legal process.

150 years ago almost everybody wanted the majority in a southern community to be able to lynch black people with impunity, did that make lynching right, of course not, the very idea is absurd. But, they/we did it regularly because it was what they/we wanted, and the law be damned.

There was nothing preventing LACSD from waiting him out. There was nowhere to go and he would have been left with two options in the end, surrender or suicide. Either of those outcomes would have been perfectly within the law, but that's not what the people on the ground wanted, so they executed him.

Nobody's crying over the loss of this maniac, but tolerance for this kind of unlawful vigilantism is exactly how we get to the point of excusing all kinds of other atrocities.

Nobody has a problem with people exercising their right to wish everybody a nice day, that speech needs no protection. It is the patently offensive and most vile speech that must be protected. This is a similar case.

The fact that so many of us have lost sight of that, something that the Democratic Party used to stand up for, BTW, is the problem.