usually, responsible law enforcement procedure is not to let someone die before facing prosecution...but we know how the LAPD has been and we know how they've responded to this. we also dont know all the facts, yet.

and for probably the fifth time, i'm asking how they let him burn. did they prevent him from leaving the building?

Youseff wrote:for what? I made about 5 points then called out Trent for being a sloppy hypocrite. pretty OK night of work.

It's true. There's no difference between administering lethal injection to someone that is unarmed, in prison, in shackles, etc., and using whatever means necessary to disarm someone who is armed, dangerous, on the run for a week, has killed numerous people, and will continue to kill numerous people until stopped.

Those are the same. I'm a hypocrite. A sloppy one.

that is how the conversation started. I dunno what to tell you but your reading comprehension is atrocious right now.

Roger Dorn wrote:People are tweeting the police are holding the fire department back to let the cabin burn in case he's inside.

but outside of your weird behavior right now, CNN does say this which is confusing:

[Updated at 8:34 p.m. ET] At some point today, a suspect tried to get out the back door of the cabin, but he was pushed back inside, U.S. Marshals Service district chief Kurt Ellingson told CNN's Brian Todd.

We're still waiting for details about the fire at the cabin, which began about an hour ago.

weird behavior?

they also reported he got away and there were tracks. you're getting upset and have no clue what happened. You're the weird one!

Trent Steele wrote:

Youseff wrote:for what? I made about 5 points then called out Trent for being a sloppy hypocrite. pretty OK night of work.

It's true. There's no difference between administering lethal injection to someone that is unarmed, in prison, in shackles, etc., and using whatever means necessary to disarm someone who is armed, dangerous, on the run for a week, has killed numerous people, and will continue to kill numerous people until stopped.

Those are the same. I'm a hypocrite. A sloppy one.

I guess I'm not buying a staunch anti-death penalty type would look at lighting a building on fire during a shoot out a reasonable course of action.

g'nite, Phillies fans.

Youseff wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:

Youseff wrote:for what? I made about 5 points then called out Trent for being a sloppy hypocrite. pretty OK night of work.

It's true. There's no difference between administering lethal injection to someone that is unarmed, in prison, in shackles, etc., and using whatever means necessary to disarm someone who is armed, dangerous, on the run for a week, has killed numerous people, and will continue to kill numerous people until stopped.

Those are the same. I'm a hypocrite. A sloppy one.

I guess I'm not buying a staunch anti-death penalty type would look at lighting a building on fire during a shoot out a reasonable course of action.

That would depend on why someone is a "staunch anti-death penalty type", wouldn't it?

One reason is that they are morally opposed to killing anyone.

Another reason might be that they have seen up close and personal how the criminal justice system works, have done pro bono work with the Innocence Project, worked on cases for people on Death Row, and concluded that there is no fair way to administer the death penalty because the trial process/defense counsel appointment/random judge appointment procedure is inherently flawed, leading to the execution of clearly innocent and undeserving people, which is a crime that, if it happens a single time, exponentially outweighs whatever benefit there might be to a properly administered execution system.

Stated alternatively, I'm all for burning alive admitted armed cop killers who continue to pose a mortal threat to innocent people if that is what is deemed to the safest way to defuse the situation.

So the death penalty point is completely irrelevant to your argument

Surprising amount of pro-Dorner sentiment on Twitter

trent's argument really has nothing to do with death penalty positions

I have no idea what happened or what they were supposed to do here but I'm not giving the LAPD the benefit of the doubt after the bullshit they pulled this week

Roger Dorn wrote:Surprising amount of pro-Dorner sentiment on Twitter

I wouldn't call anyone "pro-Dorner"

i don't think any of us are doing that. but, i do think "someone shoved him back inside" is kind of silly

Well that's the only info we have, faulty or not

no, it's not. other info was he got away, that he had hostages. there was tons of faulty info.

Barry Jive wrote:I have no idea what happened or what they were supposed to do here but I'm not giving the LAPD the benefit of the doubt after the bullshit they pulled this week

It was San Bernardino Sheriff deputies who were shot today. The standoff wasn't in Los Angeles or Los Angeles County. Were the LAPD in charge anyway?

Roger Dorn wrote:Surprising amount of pro-Dorner sentiment on Twitter

LAPD is uniquely incompetent if their actions lead people to have sympathy for a terrorist.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Barry Jive wrote:I have no idea what happened or what they were supposed to do here but I'm not giving the LAPD the benefit of the doubt after the bullshit they pulled this week

It was San Bernardino Sheriff deputies who were shot today. The standoff wasn't in Los Angeles or Los Angeles County. Were the LAPD in charge anyway?

No idea. Everything here is speculation. I don't know why you guys are getting so bent out of shape over something none of us really know anything about. I'm just upset about how the entire ordeal was handled from start to finish.