- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
The hunt has apparently ended with Christopher Dorner burned to a crisp. Now we are left to contemplate the long-term consequences of not only his actions, but also those of the police, and the effect these actions may have on the future recognition of rights that are properly ours.
The first major concern is that the hunt was carried out apparently without apprehension of the suspect even being a consideration. All indicators suggest that the hunt was intended to end in Dorner's death. How does this affect the rest of us? I anticipate that just as with no-knock warrants, asset forfeiture, and significant license with the Fourth Amendment before it, this will result in a new standard in which most anyone who is wanted will be shot on sight if he does not proactively turn himself in. It may not happen immediately, but if there is not a serious pushback against what happened over the last few days, we will see the time when as soon as a person is declared wanted it will be a race. If he manages to turn himself in before he is located, he will get the right-turned-privilege of having a fair trial, a jury, and the right to confront his accusers. If he loses the race, he gets killed. It seems like a stretch, but let's not forget that asset forfeiture was supposed to affect only drug 'kingpins' who could use their untold millions to defeat our legal system either through exploiting the weaknesses in the law known only to the best and most expensive of lawyers and bankrupt local governments with the cost of repetitive appeals. We see how that worked out. No-knock warrants were originally sold to us as a special tool for use only in the rarest of cases on the most dangerous of criminals. Today, it is the standard method of serving a warrant, if you can call it that with a straight face. Allowing exceptions to the Fourth Amendment started only under the most unusual of circumstances. Today, it is almost a joke to say that we have any such protection. That said, why should I not worry about anyone who is wanted eventually being in danger of getting gunned down on sight?
The second issue is the callous disregard for public safety demonstrated in this situation. Given that I have addressed the subject repetitively and exhaustively, I am not going into a lot of detail, but the fact remains that it is completely unacceptable to allow the police to open fire and empty magazines on citizens who are not involved in any way with the suspect, nor are they in anything approaching close proximity with the suspect. If this is not stopped firmly and immediately, we are opening the door to being greeted with a hail of bullets any time a cop gets the heebie-jeebies. I should think the implications obvious for the danger both for the physical well-being of the population and any pretense of liberty in a free republic. It would be a truly hard sell to convince any thinking person that living in danger of randomly being fired upon is compatible with any pretense of freedom.
The third, although not entirely separate from the second, is the implications of search, denial of access to property, and the intrusive searches of travelers with guns drawn. I fail to understand how a reasonable suspicion can be demonstrated with anyone and everyone who happens to be in a general geographic area. Even if there is, how in the universe can anyone justify drawing down on passers-by for having the bad fortune to live in the general area with such an incident? Searching homes en masse would also seem to be quite the problem issue. This didn't seem to miss by far a new standard of the police being able to do whatever the hell they feel like under any unusual circumstances that don't give them the warm fuzzies. It would seem that except under deliberate misinterpretation, the Fourth Amendment does not condone this.
The fourth issue is that of due process. The subject of the obvious fact that this hunt was intended to end in execution from the beginning has already been addressed at length. Significantly, this is the first manhunt in the United States that was launched as an execution without the thinnest pretense of apprehension being held as the preferable alternative aside from a few soundbites from the PD spokespersons. Take this in combination with the official decision that using drones to kill US citizens without any due process beyond the decision of one political hack with no burden of proof and no recourse is perfectly proper and the more ominous provision of the NDAA, and I am left to wonder how anyone could feel safe and comfortable.
This leaves us with the one important question: How do we, within the scope of political means, prevent this display of flagrant disregard for public safety and the ostensible reason for the existence of police departments from becoming commonplace? Suggestions have been raised for better training and criminal charges where appropriate, but I am satisfied that this is a problem deeper than the malfeasance of a select few individuals. Suggestions for a large-scale solution? I would also offer the caution that we cannot allow the fact that Dorner does not inspire sympathy to affect our judgment. He may be a poor poster child, but the fact remains that the issue is not about him, but rather the proper function of the republic--and what we have seen over the last few days certainly doesn't count for the proper function of a free republic.
The first major concern is that the hunt was carried out apparently without apprehension of the suspect even being a consideration. All indicators suggest that the hunt was intended to end in Dorner's death. How does this affect the rest of us? I anticipate that just as with no-knock warrants, asset forfeiture, and significant license with the Fourth Amendment before it, this will result in a new standard in which most anyone who is wanted will be shot on sight if he does not proactively turn himself in. It may not happen immediately, but if there is not a serious pushback against what happened over the last few days, we will see the time when as soon as a person is declared wanted it will be a race. If he manages to turn himself in before he is located, he will get the right-turned-privilege of having a fair trial, a jury, and the right to confront his accusers. If he loses the race, he gets killed. It seems like a stretch, but let's not forget that asset forfeiture was supposed to affect only drug 'kingpins' who could use their untold millions to defeat our legal system either through exploiting the weaknesses in the law known only to the best and most expensive of lawyers and bankrupt local governments with the cost of repetitive appeals. We see how that worked out. No-knock warrants were originally sold to us as a special tool for use only in the rarest of cases on the most dangerous of criminals. Today, it is the standard method of serving a warrant, if you can call it that with a straight face. Allowing exceptions to the Fourth Amendment started only under the most unusual of circumstances. Today, it is almost a joke to say that we have any such protection. That said, why should I not worry about anyone who is wanted eventually being in danger of getting gunned down on sight?
The second issue is the callous disregard for public safety demonstrated in this situation. Given that I have addressed the subject repetitively and exhaustively, I am not going into a lot of detail, but the fact remains that it is completely unacceptable to allow the police to open fire and empty magazines on citizens who are not involved in any way with the suspect, nor are they in anything approaching close proximity with the suspect. If this is not stopped firmly and immediately, we are opening the door to being greeted with a hail of bullets any time a cop gets the heebie-jeebies. I should think the implications obvious for the danger both for the physical well-being of the population and any pretense of liberty in a free republic. It would be a truly hard sell to convince any thinking person that living in danger of randomly being fired upon is compatible with any pretense of freedom.
The third, although not entirely separate from the second, is the implications of search, denial of access to property, and the intrusive searches of travelers with guns drawn. I fail to understand how a reasonable suspicion can be demonstrated with anyone and everyone who happens to be in a general geographic area. Even if there is, how in the universe can anyone justify drawing down on passers-by for having the bad fortune to live in the general area with such an incident? Searching homes en masse would also seem to be quite the problem issue. This didn't seem to miss by far a new standard of the police being able to do whatever the hell they feel like under any unusual circumstances that don't give them the warm fuzzies. It would seem that except under deliberate misinterpretation, the Fourth Amendment does not condone this.
The fourth issue is that of due process. The subject of the obvious fact that this hunt was intended to end in execution from the beginning has already been addressed at length. Significantly, this is the first manhunt in the United States that was launched as an execution without the thinnest pretense of apprehension being held as the preferable alternative aside from a few soundbites from the PD spokespersons. Take this in combination with the official decision that using drones to kill US citizens without any due process beyond the decision of one political hack with no burden of proof and no recourse is perfectly proper and the more ominous provision of the NDAA, and I am left to wonder how anyone could feel safe and comfortable.
This leaves us with the one important question: How do we, within the scope of political means, prevent this display of flagrant disregard for public safety and the ostensible reason for the existence of police departments from becoming commonplace? Suggestions have been raised for better training and criminal charges where appropriate, but I am satisfied that this is a problem deeper than the malfeasance of a select few individuals. Suggestions for a large-scale solution? I would also offer the caution that we cannot allow the fact that Dorner does not inspire sympathy to affect our judgment. He may be a poor poster child, but the fact remains that the issue is not about him, but rather the proper function of the republic--and what we have seen over the last few days certainly doesn't count for the proper function of a free republic.
For instance, I can't remember if it was in this thread or not, but if the dude was unconscious from one of his wrecks, deadly force would not have been appropriate. (IMHO.) No matter how heinous his crimes, if he isn't a threat when deadly force is used, it probably isn't the right level of force.
