In 1997, a threat to (local) society in L.A. (North Hollywood) two bank robbers were shot to death, as the police took it upon themselves to not go through due process, and instead brought immediate justice.
By the logic of some, they should not have been shot. They should have been taken through "due process" instead. In order for this to happen they would have had to run out of ammo, and altogether been done with their murders, then arrested and placed in jail, and then taken to court.
Anwar al-Awlaki, was also brought to justice instead of going through due process, to which I agree. He should have been.
Nothing different here in either situation.
Some are satisfied he is dead, yet at the same time complain that he didn't go through due process.
????? Really ??????
It has been argued on here that due process didn't happen with Anwar. Due process also didn't happen in L.A. It also hasn't happened in many cases where a threat was simply taken out and justice was served immediately, to which I agree. This was what happened, versus "due process." No one then, and now, according to my knowledge complained that "due process" wasn't followed in the North Hollywood incident.
No one waved the Constitution in complaint. No one carried a flag down the street in protest. I expect all complaining about the situation now, specifically Anwar's situtation, to protest each and every situation where a person who is threatening the lives of others is taken out. Every single time with no exceptions.
Who, among the two above posed the greater threat to the World?
Those who clamour for due process state that we are all now under threat due to this instance with Anwar.
Does this now mean Obama will point to a page in a phone book and send a missile to the one to whom his finger has found?
Absolutely not.
Justice was served in 1997, and in 2011.
"1997 North Hollywood Event"
Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by preacher4truth, Oct 1, 2011.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
Oh, here's another incident where this poor fella didn't get due process, and instead was taken out:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/01/authorities-say-california-slayings-suspect-killed-in-manhunt/ -
Apples and oranges. You are wrong here, just like on the "Due Process" thread. You probably already know this, but are too stubborn to admit it.
-
I need more details - I am not familiar with the case. Where these shooter killed by the police while driving down the road, or were they in the act of shooting innocent people?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm1PEY8F4xE -
-
I agree with the decision. This is a war, and traitors deserve to be shot on sight.
So, let's not paint this picture as if he were just some fella cruisin' around town in his car who was taken out innocently.
Who was a greater threat to the world?
Don't you think we should have just let those two bank robbers shoot until they ran out of ammo, then arrest them? Yes, then we can take them to jail, court, and then we'd all feel good. Not here, they got due process in the shape of a round of ammo. Anwar got due process in the shape of a missile. Three threats taken out.
I don't see any constitutional violations in this case, nor in the L.A. case.
Anyone pulls what Anwar did, and justice will be served, and I'd stand behind the efforts to do so. -
I keep getting confused. I thought this thread was about 1997 LA shootings?
-
-
These two stories are so disparate I can't see a connection. One case shooters in an active shooting were killed by police seeking to end the shooting.
In another case the president issues a pre-emptive kill order against a guy for his hate speech and Internet postings. He is then killed, not in the act of killing but driving down the road.
I don't see any similarity. One is an active threat, the other a potential threat. -
Anwar was just a guy who made hate speeches and did so via internet? Really? Zero tolerance policy for terrorists, home or abroad. This is a war on terror.
Both were active threats. Both are now inactive. End of story. -
This thread may be inactive folks. Mine is still active for discussion.
-
-
-
Just a note folks, just like the constitution this place has rules. If you want to post here the thread is open until closed by a moderator.
-
-
Okay - now I justifiably feel like a dummy - I was on my phone and misread your comment that your 'thread' was inactive, not threat - whew boy! :Sheepish grin:
-
These guys in Hollywood were in the act of killing people - who was Anwar killing when he was stopped? Who did he ever kill?
-
-
Inform me. Who did he kill?
We are supposed to be comparing the two incidents in the OP. In one case people were actively involved in shooting. In this case he was not. That is a major difference.
The administration had nearly two years to get judicial backing for this action. President Obama placed himself above the constitution.
In the LA case there was an immediate threat that had to be dealt with.
Page 1 of 2