I know, it sounds loaded, but it's pretty simple.

When does 'dead or alive' apply, or does it?

My thinking on the topic started with Christopher Dorner, who was, IMO, executed. They intentionally set the house on fire, burning him alive...

There have been other cases, like in TX, where explosives attached to a robot were used to kill a suspect that was hiding in a parking structure and refused to give up.

This has come back again as, in the last couple of days incidents have come to my attention which I find disturbing....

The first case, a guy shoots at cops (obviously bad), the cops return fire (on a highway), the cops end up hitting a guy in a minivan and another vehicle from errant rounds.... and the truck speeds off... A deputy is lying in wait, miles down the road, and dumps an entire mag from a fully automatic MP5 into the suspect vehicle as it drives by, on a busy highway... clearly with intent to kill the suspect, not disable the vehicle.

I find issues with this for MANY reasons, other than the obvious 'hey, dumbass, you're accountable for the bullets that leave your gun'.....I don't really see domestic law enforcement as an execution squad, but apparently that's how they were used... 'We can't catch him without getting hurt, so we're going to kill him'... (See TX incident above)


The second issue happened in Oregon, under similar circumstances.. A guy shot at police, then ran.. Police then used an armored personnel carrier to ram the truck multiple times... The guy tried to get out of the truck, but the APC continued to ram the truck, essentially not even giving the occupant the opportunity to surrender.. An officer then opened a hatch and dumped a mag from what appears to be an AR into the driver, who appeared to be just along for the ride at this point, killing him...

Now, yes, I understand the whole 'don't shoot at cops' thing...

But at what point are cops able to decide that they're 'done negotiating', and are not going to pursue a peaceful end, and switch from attempting to capture, to attempting to kill?

I also see a HUGE issue with militarizing police. Full auto MP5 on a crowded highway? WTF? An APC pushing around a truck until one of the officers decided to pop out, ARMORED, and shoot a suspect?

Situations like these give me pause, as they're VERY concerning... This isn't a heat of the moment case, this isn't an active shooter case, this is a situation where cops determined that they're going to kill the guy to stop him, instead of attempting a capture, and using military hardware to do it. In an APC, you're practically invincible, yet they toss the suspect around, then shoot him... and laying it wait with a fully automatic MP5? WTF?



Videos...


Utah County...





APC in Oregon...

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I wish they would act this way more often. Make the losers think twice about running/shooting at the cops (again).

Yes, yes it is.

The first thing that came to my mind when seeing that Oregon video is non-LEO civilians don't have access to the same arms. I thought that was the point of 2A.

To me, it boils down to whether or not lethal force is required, the same line used for a good shoot with regards to self-defense. It's a clear line that all civilians need to abide (including police). And agreed, all rounds are accountable. Many times these errant rounds are treated like force majeure if it was done by people with badges.

Civilians can legally buy and own machine guns in Oregon.

I think that if you’re in a shootout with law enforcement, then they no longer need to continuously give you an opportunity to surrender, and it doesn’t need to be a “fair fight” with two fellas squared off against each other. Once you’re in a shootout, all rules of fair play are out the window.

So yeah, I don’t have a problem with the “ambushes” that you’ve described.

Yup, if you decide to pull a gun on LE then your are sealing your own fate.

End. Of. Story.

Fuckem right in the pussy. If someone uses deadly force on them then it's open season. What I'm not a fan of is the amouj t of effort they put towards finding someone that shot at or killed a cop vs the effort they would put towards me.

Damn straight, on the spot execution.
You shoot at police, you die. You try to kill or hurt police with other means, you should die.
Save the tax payers.
Not much of a need to explain simple black and white.

The tribe has spoken.

They had to kill Chris Dorner fast, they couldn't risk taking him to trial after his manifesto praising Obama and Feinstein and talking about the need for banning guns.

If you choose to break the law and be a threat to LE or civies then off with your head. We're not talking about mistakingly shooting an unarmed guy on a porch , these examples are LE taking fire from bad guys.
Errant rounds.... while unfortunate we all wake up in the morning on our way to the end of our journey. Could be a slip on the stairs, a plane hitting a building, a drunk crossing the center line or an errant round from LE or a bad guy. Crap happens.

Generally no. That's the job of the militia - When your neighbors want to shoot you you probably need to be shot.

There's more to it but imagine all the benefits of a well established militia.

The job of the police is to protect "society", it is not their job to protect *you* at the expense of protecting society.
The job of protecting you is...yours.
Stopping a deadly threat to "the public" is legally defensible if you are a LEO, if you are a citizen, not so much, or, at least demonstrably more iffy in terms of documented legal outcomes.

So, if you shoot at cops, then you can be executed on the spot. What if you just robbed the bank and you're running away? Should you be executed? Do you not see the inherent problem with that? Do you not see the slippery slope there? Where is the line drawn? Legally speaking, there can never be a difference in the rights afforded law enforcement and the individual citizen. That would create a class system which is not constitutional.
So, if that is the case, and law enforcement can execute someone for shooting at them, chase them down, and set up an ambush, then what prevents me from doing the same?

I see an obvious conflict. And, I generally agree had shooting at law forcement is a bad idea, but I don't see how setting up an ambush to execute them is the right thing to do.

What next? Someone blows a stop sign, and runs from the police, which is a felony. And three miles down the road you have an officer with an MP5 that throws 33 rounds into the passenger compartment? Where does it end?