Now that the smoke has cleared, can anyone say why they didn't simply sit and wait?
Dorner was completely surrounded. There was simply no way out for him. True enough, some civilians might have been inconvenienced. But no one needed to die. The spectacle we all witnessed didn't need to occur. Apart from those possibly inconvenienced civilians, there was no need to lob tear gas or flash bangs or any other heavy duty bang-bang shit, to taunt, to beg or cajole.
Why do the cops all too often have this inclination to attack. They are peace keepers. They could have peacefully just waited. No pizza deliveries. Turn off the electric, maybe. Turn off the gas and phone, and maybe even the water.
This is not a defense of Dorner. His suicide saved us a lot of money and I am glad he chose that way out. But it seems to me an alternate ending was also possible if the response had been different.
= new reply since forum marked as read
But go ahead and cite the case law for your "run away" obligation for the police.
SCOTUS case law requires a three part test.
"The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application," Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 441 U. S. 559 (1979), however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. at 471 U. S. 8-9 (the question is "whether the totality of the circumstances justifie a particular sort of. . . seizure".
Graham v Connor
In this case, all three factors point towards the cops having legal authority to do what they did, at a bare minimum. They could have flashbanged and shot him too.
Doncha know?
"No, we don't know when he'll surrender. We don't know anything, really. Could be days...could be weeks. Really depends. Well, yes, I suppose he could take potshots and endanger anyone in the effective range of whatever unknown weapon he may have. We just don't know. It would be a violation of his rights to just barge in there, you see. No, you don't have any right to live in peace and safety. You lost those rights as soon as he decided to hole up there. It's HIS world now. He calls the shots. Yes, I realize that every goddamned weirdo is gathering around to watch the spectacle. Yes, it's true that the police are spending so much time babysitting Dorner that they can't tend to much else. The bottom line, ma'am, is that we have to respect Mr. Dorner's right to kill as many people as he sees fit and hole up in someone else's property for as long as he likes. What do you want us to do, try to put an end to this?"
