General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhen did rule of law and judicial system become debatable ideas here?
In the past day I've seen three different threads where some members of this community were advocating or at least saw no problem with extra-judicial killing of criminals. The various Dorner threads are the most obvious example of this with some posters being okay with the the idea that the LAPD started the fire to kill Dorner.
There was another long thread about the man who shot the drunk driver who killed his kids and a lot DUers were fine with acquitting the guy as if he had done nothing wrong. To be fair, if I were on the jury and the choices were between murder in the 1st or 2nd degree or acquittal, I would vote to acquit. However, we have the crime of manslaughter to cover what the father did.
Then we have a thread where a couple of posters were hoping fellow inmates killed a child rapist who had been sentenced to life in prison. His crime was horrible, no one can dispute that and I hope he rots there for the rest of his days, but I find it very disturbing that some of us are okay with letting others take the law into their own hands, especially when some of those "others" are gangsters.
So, in your opinion, when is it okay to cast aside the rule of law and the judicial process? Is it okay to allow prisoners to kill someone in prison if we feel that the legal punishment wasn't harsh enough for their crime? Is it okay to allow cops to make themselves executioners when it comes to dealing with cop-killers? Should society approve of a father taking the law into his own hands and killing someone who was no longer a threat?
If we do approve in any of the above situations then where do we draw the line? Legally theft isn't punishable by death, but wouldn't be surprised if there is some Objectivist asshole out there who feels that his property is as important as a father's kids. Should we allow the Objectiveist to kill the thief if he is unconscious since he feels theft should be a capital crime? This is the biggest danger in tolerating vigilantism or "street justice" everyone has their own standards of justice and may feel that the law isn't firm enough so they have a right to take the law into their hands. Simply put, I feel that we either believe in a rule of law and the judicial process or we don't. We can't have it both ways.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to legal principles.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)That just makes it more important that we have a system of laws and courts to try and temper those dark impulses with something more reasonable.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)thankfully rarely translate into action.
emulatorloo
(44,164 posts)
dogknob
(2,431 posts)...Clarence Thomas' SCOTUS post was purchased.
The Rule of Law stopped right there.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The idea that the law is co-extensive with morality and justice is a really dangerous one, imo.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)You are not alone ... A horrible week in 'Liberal' DU ...
I am guessing some of these .... DUers .... Would feel quite at home, eating ice cream cones in the town's lynching square ... just a hunch ...
Extra judicial killings ... KGB did those ... Salvadoran Death Squads did those ...
Robb
(39,665 posts)That we create laws to allow this, laws to skirt the law, should terrify.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)be found inconsistent.
Personally, I think it takes both courage and maturity to suppress the desire go for a quick fix like burning down the cabin.
Courage to face those in the community and perhaps chain of command, who desperately want the quick fix; and maturity to implement a solution that might not be the quickest but that yields minimum damage to the target, property, and the society's view of justice.
As was seen in this episode, quick reactions were frequently wrong and hurt innocent people.
Squinch
(50,989 posts)when - especially when - it is the most difficult.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)on the Eastern Shore of Maryland (where there is not another house in sight), exactly who am I preparing to be the judge, juror, and executioner of?
I will grant you, I have also used a shotgun to execute a variety of Eastern Shore waterfowl over the last 40 years, all of which my family has consumed; but I can assure you, you don't need to be terrified of me.
Light House
(413 posts)LAPD did not start the fire, LAPD wasn't even there, this was a San Bernardino County Sheriff's Dept. op with tactical support from the U.S. Marshal's Service and the FBI.
That being said, I certainly don't approve of extra judicial killing of anyone, but when you have someone like Dorner, who is heavily armed and has stated his intent to kill the cops and cops families and actually did kill a cops daughter and her fiance and then go on to kill 2 more cop, and refuse to surrender when cornered and keep shooting at LEO, then I have no problem with LEO having to do what is necessary to end the threat.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Parse the extra-judicial summary execution any gawddamn way you please, it was illegal, immoral, and downright unprofessional. Those assholes left a shitstain on all decent, honorable LEO everywhere.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)That is just not right. The rest of us can see it's not right. Even IF, and it's a BIG IF, your worst conspiracy theory is true and they intentionally burned him to death in the view of the world ON CAMERA, it is NOT RIGHT to paint all law enforcement personnel as evil because of what one department did. Especially since you are continually confused about which department it was. Details matter, especially in those trials you want to happen.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)They shot CS tear gas into the place he was holed up because the standard tear gas didn't flush him out.
After they shot the CS tear gas in, he shot himself rather than surrender.
There was nothing illegal about it. CS tear gas is used all the time. If it were illegal, perhaps someone would have raised the issue of it being in the SWAT team's possession.
Sorry you're all butthurt about a successful resolution to a standoff involving a homicidal madman.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)in that thread NO ONE said that was a-ok. What they said was the guy had temporary insanity. That is a legitimate defense in some states.
Light House
(413 posts)I should have addressed the rest of the post but I was fixated on the Dorner situation.
Thanks for the post.
brooklynite
(94,679 posts)...absent a Trial?
Pull over someone for speeding?
Tackle someone running away from a mugging?
Return fire with an armed bank robber?
In each of these cases, no trial has occurred, so the suspect is presumed innocent.
In each of these cases, police intervention is required to potentially prevent future harm to others, and the suspect may not surrender willingly.
We can argue about the measure of force that's appropriate, but it's irresponsible to oppose what happened simply on the principle that police force was applied.
RevStPatrick
(2,208 posts)And our culture is being systematically and purposefully debased.
For profit.
And control.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)promotes this belief that might makes right. Those on top should be treated extra special and wield extra power compared to those on the bottom of the ladder.
This is how oligarchies are formed though, so this is why I am shocked to see why so many on DU don't understand this. It seems apathy for the lack of justice and rule of law is rampant in our society now. So sad.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)I think we see this in personal relationships too. I thought as we progressed compassion and sympathy would expand but I am beginning to doubt that. The fact that we celebrate the death of human beings so cavalierly is really disturbing.
I was never in doubt about Dorner because I was never judging him to begin with. If he had comitted those crimes then he needed to be apprehended, not hunted.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)He lost his mind temporarily. That's what people in teh thread the OP is talking about said. No one said it was just fine he killed the drunk. What some posters, incl. myself, said was that it was understandable, what he did, under the circumstances....he lost his mind for a short while upon seeing a drunk crush his two children in front of his eyes.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)It's the cover your ears while you close your eyes and sing "la, la, la, la, la....." disease. I see the same defenses and denials in the drone issue also.
Every war has included the death of children
It's an inescapable fact.
I read this in another thread. Surely the poster does not condone the deaths of children but this statement implies because it's always happened then it's okay now.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)I left them out, because I feared they would derail the thread, but you are right that they are just another symptom of this worldview.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)What we saw with actions of these self-appointed juries and executioners, is a symptom of that disease.
The PIGS that did this, should be up on charges of Murder 1. No person is above the law, NO ONE.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)They did not cause his death, for one. He shot himself after they shot the tear gas inside. He did so rather than coming out and surrendering.
Their actions were legal, and did not cause his death. Ergo, the accusation of murder is silly.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I had a cop in my own family until he passed away some years back, high ranking officer, told me more than once that a lot of cops should leave police work after a certain point. The job makes some people hard, bitter and cynical and then even the ones that started out with good intentions are not good cops any more.
Evidently it doesn't happen to everyone but to enough that it's a real problem.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... pigs that put themselves above the law and act as common murderers and thugs, not so much.
Quite frankly, if that displeases someone like you, I consider that a wonderful bonus.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)fire investigation results are released.
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #53)
Post removed
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)of vigilantism might well be a majority these days.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)who sets the standard.
Forecast by Louis Brandise in Olmstead v. United States (1928)
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Everything is nice and clear when you're criticizing your opponents for doing something.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Here's reality: when someone shoots at police, they WILL be shot. The police are allowed to use the same force, or force one step up, from the force a suspect is using. It's perfectly fine for police to shoot someone who is shooting at them.
This is not rocket science. It's the real world.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)white_wolf
(6,238 posts)Who is going to hold the random guy on the street accountable if we accept vigilantism?
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)And people don't understand that someday that process of the knee-jerk, hateful mob could one day turn upon them. All it takes is a single mistake, a single suspicion, a single slightly differing idea.
It is the way of the bully, the zealot, the fanatic.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to burn someone out of a building is problematic on a number of levels. It's far from clear that's what happened, of course.
They did not go so far as to say Dorner's due process rights were violated, which of course belongs in the realm of fantasy alongside the idea that tax cuts always help balance the budget.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)That wasn't even the real point of this thread. I'm discussing the larger issue involving rule of law and the acceptance of extra-judicial killings. If everything the police said about the Dorner story was the full story then fine they had a right to respond the way they did, but that doesn't address the issue of some people hoping fellow prisoners kill another prisoner or condoning the actions of a the father who killed the drunk driver.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)At this point, we do not have the coroner's report of the cause of death. Thus far, a positive identification has been released.
So if you want to talk about the rule of law and how it proceeds, the assertion that Dorner was killed by the fire is not even an established fact, let alone how the fire started, etc.
I would suggest that the law itself is a poor guide to personal morality. No one is required to apply any "rule of law" to their sympathies or opinions.
My favorite example is the "presumption of innocence" which establishes burdens in a courtroom. If you walk up to me, punch me, take my wallet and run off with it, I do not sit there presuming you to be innocent of jack shit. Nor does any law require me to.
Are you saying that if you were mugged, you would call the police? To do what? Arrest the presumptively innocent person who mugged you? I'd like to hear that call:
"Hello 911? An innocent person just hit me and took my wallet. I don't know if they mugged me or committed any crime, because they have not been convicted in a court of law. I mean, I got mugged, I'm pretty sure. And the innocent person was standing there hitting me and taking my wallet during the mugging. But, I guess I still have to presume they were innocent. So, I guess, if you see them then, uh, just let them know that they are presumed innocent, okay?"
I can see the trial now.
You are in the witness stand, the guy who mugged you is at the defense table, and the prosecutor asks you:
"Can you point to the person who mugged you?" and you point at the defendant.
The defense attorney rises to his feet and says, "Your Honor, I object. The prosecution has put on a witness who believes the defendant is guilty, and he's not allowed to do that!"
A mistrial is declared, and everyone goes home.
But are you making the observation with respect to the police and the "rule of law" or with those who have already deemed the police guilty and the "rule of law".
The rule of law doesn't care what side you are on.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)This is getting effin' ridiculous. This is more of a case like Al Capone, or Bonnie and Clyde. People need to quit calling it an extrajudicial killing. Those are where the government agents kill their political opponents. It is really wrong to equate Dorner with that.
Just stop it. Really, it's making us look bad.
You can argue that the LAPD mishandled it. But calling it an extrajudicial killing is just ignorant.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)How do you feel about the other two examples I used? Dorner was just one.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That is an actual case of vigilantism. The defendant had no trial and no charge and no chance to defend himself. And I would never vote to acquit there - even if the driver was drunk and at fault for the accident. There is no right to do what that shooter did in a civilized society. The punishment for drunk driving isn't death.
I am never in favor of inmates killing other inmates or any other "punishment" not sanctioned by law. The punishment for child rape is imprisonment and not death. Nor rape or any other type of thing. That is vigilante justice (and wrongly "rewards" other prisoners who "get to" carry out the "punishment."
Posts hoping prisoners will be raped are sickening. That is not a valid punishment under our legal system.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)But, and correct me if I'm wrong - mad dad shot drunk driver who killed kids? Is that it in a nutshell?
If so, is mad dad being charged with a crime?
He has committed a homicide of some kind. Whether he has an affirmative defense of some kind, or whether he has a temporary insane condition arising from the death of his children, or whether it gets knocked down to some level below whatever that state's highest degree of criminal homicide may be, are all matters that will be determined under the rule of law.
Again, the rule of law is not a guide to anyone's personal opinions, sympathies, morality, and so on. IT SHOULD NOT BE. It is only a process without substance. The substance comes from elsewhere.
You seem to presume that one should rule one's own mind by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or something along those lines.
That is simply silly.
And if you ask me - mad dad has legal problems, may well be convicted of something, and has my complete sympathy. So?
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)The fact that people were willing to simply let the dad go after he killed someone and considered his actions justified. That is the problem.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)My goodness. The entire point about the "rule of law" is the longstanding recognition that mob mentality yields poor results over time.
The "rule of law" stands on its own. It's not like mobs of one sort or another would have done things differently. It's not jeopardized by people sounding off on an internet discussion forum.
If one can't sympathize with the father to any extent, then there is something wrong with one's sympathy bones.
And indeed, we have worked into the "rule of law" a mob rule component because, and I say this with long experience and trust in the law, the law can lead to some absurd results once in a while.
So, we give governors and the president extraordinary power to commute sentences, issue pardons, and in effect exercise complete personal discretion over the outcomes of the rule of law.
And that is an entirely political thing, although in practice most states have formalized procedures around the exercise of that executive power too. But at the end of the day, we do indeed have - built into the "rule of law" - a purely political safety valve that can be based solely on popular opinion.
But I wouldn't fret too much about whether other people's passions about a news story one way or the other constitute any sort of social "problem" of any great magnitude.
It's just a roundabout way of saying, "There is something wrong with people who don't see things my way."
Again, I don't know, but I would guess that a lot of the folks who would like to see mad dad acquitted ALSO completely understand that he's going to be charged with a crime, and is going to deal or take it to trial.
And there again, we use citizen juries in trials, too. Whatever them there people in the box decide is what goes - at least as to factual questions.
The "rule of law" doesn't tell you what the outcomes will be - it only provides a process. Are you saying there are people who do not believe that mad dad will be charged with a crime and given due process?
It's like the Trayvon Martin thing. I don't know what happened that night. The point was that some guy killed someone, and the police didn't charge him with anything, on facts that are, to be generous, pretty debatable. Once Zimmerman was charged and arraigned, and the process started, I was satisfied, and am satisfied, that there is going to be a trial and a verdict, rendered by people who are going to spend a whole lot more time chewing it over than I ever will.
It's not about the results, it's about the process. The process for mad dad is working fine. All of the rest of us are entitled to do whatever we want with our pitchforks and torches. Nobody is burning down the courthouse yet.
Don't panic.
randome
(34,845 posts)The LAPD had nothing to do with the fire. The FBI, the U.S. Marshal's service and the San Bernardino PD all cooperated in doing what they thought was necessary to stop Dorner's murderous rampage.
You can play second-string QB all you want but with that many agencies working together, I'm willing to give the LE experts the benefit of a doubt.
If you want to believe in a CT that large, then there is nothing to talk about.
And then there's also the fact that Dorner killed himself rather than surrender.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)out that some people (very few IMO) actually said they didn't mind it if the LAPD did burn him alive by intent.
That would be going too far.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Not only is anyone entitled to their own opinion of the situation, but one is also entitled to argue for alternative laws in contrast to the ones which apply.
Otherwise, a good deal of what goes on in courts and legislatures can be shut down right now.
Under the applicable rule of law as applied to what is generally known about the Dorner thing, it is unlikely that there was a problem in the use of deadly force.
But, of course, anyone is entitled to think that is wrong and should be changed.
What you are not entitled to do is to say it was some obvious and flagrant violation of the existing legal rules around use of deadly force.
But, and again forcefully, nobody has to like the rules. We live in a system where people can, if there is sufficient reason, change the rules. Clearly, to get there, you have to disagree with the ones we have.
Disagreeing is fine. Otherwise, nothing would ever change.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)reckless as well as an 8th amendment issue. Especially with ammo in the house and the threat of fire spreading.
Fire is chaotic and destructive--the exact opposite of what a LE tool should be.
Spoken as one who believes what actually happened is about as well as one could have hoped for there.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Is anyone making a distinction between, and again we'll assume Dorner didn't shoot himself anyway, a cop intentionally shooting him dead versus burning the house?
I mean, and I may have missed it, I haven't seen a whole lot of people saying, "It would have been okay for the police to shoot him in a major organ that would leave him to writhe in pain and bleed out until dead, but if he died from smoke inhalation in a fire, then that's going too far."
If anyone has been making distinctions among the various things that might be generally classified as "deadly force", then I missed it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)used as an anti-personnel weapon.
Death by fire is an extraordinarily cruel death associated with medieval methods.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And, from the "this just in" department, I think we'll be hearing about the cause of death shortly.
randome
(34,845 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The various Dorner threads are the most obvious example of this with some posters being okay with the the idea that the LAPD started the fire to kill Dorner.
We're used to so many of the "those murdering pigs lynched him by burning him alive" posts from the dimmer lights in the DU chandelier that it's easy to assume a rational person is making that argument, where they are not.
mokawanis
(4,450 posts)Take away the rule of law and the judicial process and we'll be awash in revenge killings and chaos.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)To paraphrase Nixon, if a cop does it, it's justified.
And yes, Dorner was a cop. Right up until he wasn't.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)one of those two incidents when the cops opened up on innocent civilians without warning had resulted in the person attacked pulling out a gun and shooting back. Obviously they would have been dead (it WAS the LAPD who started shooting without warning after all), but would they have had justification? Or would they have been condemned because they attempted self defense against the cops?
And as to DU, it's become a whole lot more "Democratic", as in Third Way triangulators, and a whole lot less "Underground".
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)There was a recent incident like that here in TN and I don't think there's been any investigation into it. I doubt there will be either.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I don't like what the LAPD did, and I think they could have handled the situation "better." However, Dorner was extremely dangerous, and the police, being only human, were very upset and most likely had their judgment muddled when Dorner killed some of their friends. Even though I really don't like what the LAPD did, I believe the extreme danger mixed with extreme emotions make the situation more understandable.
That said, the LAPD demonstrated their extreme incompetence when some of them shot up those two vehicles.
Jury nullification is a part of our legal system, and therefore a part of rule of law, here in the US. Desiring an acquittal is completely within rule of law.
I have no rebuttal for this one. I hope some of those who "wish" for the inmate to be killed are not expressing their true feelings, and merely expressing anger for the crime, but I don't really know.
I really don't like our judicial system because it is not fair. The more money a person can spend on lawyers, the more likely that person is to get their way, legally speaking. I believe that in many cases, our judicial system only determines wealth, as opposed to guilt or innocence.
Good OP. Recommended.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Your positions on these issues is not, despite the gloosed over basic premise, the only pro-judicial system opinion possible.
"The various Dorner threads are the most obvious example of this with some posters being okay with the the idea that the LAPD started the fire to kill Dorner."
This is a complicated topic that many of us have not weighted in on -- largely because we lack the facts necessary to reach any conclusion. Simply put, there are rules and laws governing the use of lethal force. If lethal force is justified then it makes little difference what that lethal force was. Bullet, bumper, or bonfire, if it was justifiable to use that level of force then it was justifiable. We don't know what happened, nor do we know the TRUTH about whether the police deliberately started the fire or not -- let alone whether they did so intentionally.
There was another long thread about the man who shot the drunk driver who killed his kids and a lot DUers were fine with acquitting the guy as if he had done nothing wrong.
I happen to fall into that category, though I would not say I believe the man did nothing wrong. Rather, I believe he did nothing deserving of criminal conviction, and given what we know I would almost certainly not vote to convict him.
Then we have a thread where a couple of posters were hoping fellow inmates killed a child rapist who had been sentenced to life in prison.
I haven't seen the thread and do not support this.
Equally, I do not support the tendency by some here to try and claim the mantle of democratic or liberal purity for whatever position they happen to hold.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I posted in that thread. I and a number of others agreed he was NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY. He clearly lost his sanity for a few seconds or minutes. It's understandable to me.
And the LAPD says they did not intend to start the cabin on fire. Dorner was dead already, for one thing. They were throwing gasses and things like that into the cabin, and it caught fire.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)In many people's minds party loyalty trumps everything else. That party may be a political party, loyalty to the police, loyalty to their military employers, etc...
It happened in the U.S. overall when the MSMedia decided to debate whether torture was something a person supported or not. It's why the general political environment has been dubbed "post-reality politics", not much real gets discussed. If reality were actually discussed, it would destroy the emotionally driven propaganda that only attempts to elicit an irrational, un-thought out response which is 99% of what's on the MSMedia now.
Basically, a huge number of Americans are now nothing more that propaganda responders, incapable of discerning what's real or not. Someone at the NY Times dubbed them "ad-hoc mouthpieces for conservative agitprop" which is sadly very accurate.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)All someone is telling the world when they talk about wanting or hoping for some savage, excruciating death on (fill in the supposed deserving criminal) is that they fantasize about inflicting savagery on *someone.*
They can couch it in all the theoretical calls for justice they want, but in the end, if someone says they want the child molester drawn and quartered, or the cop killer set on fire, they're just telling us how badly they want to, and how much they think about, inflicting pain, period.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)And it's only the bad guys that aren't allowed to do bad things.
Doesn't make any sense does it? But it feels good.
To be honest any good faith discussion of morality on this site is now almost impossible.
Midwestern Democrat
(806 posts)white_wolf
(6,238 posts)as I pointed out I'd never convict on 1st or 2nd degree murder charges, but he did willingly take someone else's life. Someone who also had a family and friends. I don't think it's a good idea to allow people to do that even in the the grip of grief. It opens a whole can of worms.
