John 3:16 defines Christianity for me: 

Whosoever believes in me, shall not die, but have everlasting life.

  You accept Jesus as your personal savior, and you are Christian.  I know, the organized religions want much much more, but in the end, it isn't about walking a thin line of Christian rules, but in recognizing your mortality,your (and all mankind's) sinful nature, and that your only path to heaven is through the forgiveness Christ won for us on the cross.  You aren't Christian because you don't ever sin.  You are Christian because you are a sinner, you know it, and you ask for forgiveness. 

The 'right to live in a society without firearms'.  In other words, an entitlement to utopia.  Good luck with that. 

 The government getting mixed up in the marriage relationship is exactly why we are about to destroy its definition.  Once you bring the government in to it, it will unavoidably become perverted and meaningless. 

Let the church define marriage for its membership.  If it is necessary for the government to define a relationship for inheritance or taxes or whatever, let it be done in a secular manner, and why in the world would it be based upon who you sleep with?  If my brother is my closest family member, and I wish him to be treated as next of kin, why not?  We don't need federal marriage definition, we need a next of kin civil union, and it should be open to anyone. 

 Go ahead, abandon the social issues.  Now, tell me how Republicans win any more elections without their base?  Standing for nothing in order to win elections will never actually win elections.  Ask the maverick McCain and the nice guy Romney how it worked out. 

Rush has you guys right.  You don't care one fig about principals, they are all for sale if it means a theoretical majority.  But you never notice that it isn't working, do you?  

I'm mostly offended by people who think they have a right to squelch whatever they find offensive. 

Seems to me that most women prefer the neanderthal types even to this day.  Of course once they have them they hope to convert them to homo sapien, while complaining bitterly how neanderthal they are.

What, me worry?  

Don't take this as accusatory to the Dorner cabin fire, I have no opinion as to that fire being intentional or not.  I just don't have any way to know.

I always thought the reason for using tear gas was it was non lethal.  But since Waco we learn that some types of tear gas are apt to start fires.  Why would they continue to use 'non lethal' methods that are apt to turn lethal?  Why not just call them fire bombs and be honest about it? 

I appreciate this post, as it at least shows that you have had second thoughts about the way you phrased the last post.  Clearly, that post implied an endorsement of the idea that police did not want to capture him, but instead kill him.  This was never about Dorner specifically for me, I have no sympathy or sorrow for him or the way he died.   My point in my previous posts was always on a more broad scale-  should we ever condone police determining that capturing an accused ( meaning not convicted in a court of law) criminal is not the desired outcome?  I have read you for years, and never before now did I have the impression you condoned police executions.  Until that last post. 

I don't care how 'bad' the perp is, how inept the legal system is,   how long it takes for justice to be carried out,   how many idiots may Mumia-fy the creep.  Those are not issues for the police force to take in to account when doing their duty.  They are duty bound to enforce the law.   Once you start justifying actions beyond that, you no longer have integrity, or moral credibility.   

and I said  I'm not saying they should hesitate to kill when they have to, to protect themselves or innocents
It's just that I prefer the kind of person who is never happy to take another persons life as the right type for law enforcement.  You are ready to send out killing squads in police uniforms?  Well, accept that once that is the practice, the day will soon come when cops are killing pot dealers, or reckless drivers, or gun owners, or maybe even the jerk who is dating their ex wife.  As long as they decide the crime is bad enough, why waste the time of the judicial system?  

Tommy De Seno

I think we are off topic of Jack's post

I don't think its off topic at all.  Jack said cops everywhere were hoping that Dorner would meet his end right then and there, preferably from a cop’s bullet.

So the question is, should cops ever prefer  to kill a suspect rather then apprehend them?  I'm not saying they should hesitate to kill when they have to, to protect themselves or innocents, just that they shouldn't have killing as their preferred outcome.  It perverts the whole meaning of a law enforcement officer.  And it opens the door for abuse of the worst sort. 

   All I said was that a policeman should feel regret for any situation where he is forced to kill anyone.  You instead want them to revel in the killing of suspects, as long as they can justify it?  That is not the kind of person I want on the force... 

Some of you seem to be engaging in scrutiny of the hearts of some of the police involved in this matter...what does it matter if some of the cops also wanted him to suffer a painful end?

Execution without due process, for one.  Cruel and inhumane punishment for another.  I don't weep for Dorner.  I don't care about his painful end, specifically.  I just know that once you allow police to decide who deserves to die without a fair trial, you end up with Judge Dread.  Dorner was not going to be taken alive, and it wasn't worth endangering any more law enforcement officers for his worthless sake.  My objection wasn't with how Dorner died, but with the open proclamation that cops wanted to be the ones who killed him.  They should regret any time they are forced to kill anyone, no matter what their crimes. 

Well, I'm not passing a judgment on what happened, I just don't have enough evidence for that.  But I consider it a dangerous and slippery slope when police decide that taking someone alive is not the goal.   

From the post:
 cops everywhere were hoping that Dorner would meet his end right then and there, preferably from a cop’s bullet
Add to that the two incidents of Torrence police shooting up citizens 'by mistake', and it sure looks like they were out for blood, not justice.  

I have read Jack Dunphy's stuff for years, I usually agree with him, sometimes disagree,  and wrote a rather critical comment to a recent post on this same issue.  Your comment is over the line.  He is a valuable resource showing an insider's view of the goings on in the LAPD and we are lucky to have his perspective.  He is due respect, even if you disagree with him.  I consider him a good man and he seems to be a good cop, a dangerous and often thankless job being done by some of the best among us. 
I , too am horrified by the street justice he seems to be advocating, so lets have a reasonable conversation with him about it, instead of condemning him for expressing his perspective. 

So, Jack, you seem to be saying its understandable or even possibly justifiable that the police shot two innocent citizens? Because they made a mistake?   Since there is extremely little information I have seen on the why and how, I admit I can't fairly judge their actions at this time, but if, say, a citizen had shot two innocent, unarmed people by mistake, what circumstance would make that act justifiable or understandable, instead of attempted murder? 

  I deeply respect the police and what they are up against, but they have a duty not to go shooting at someone without clear and indisputable danger to their life, no?    Unless these women were armed, brandishing and threatening, these police should be prosecuted.  Sorry, nothing justifies shooting unarmed innocents, not by an average citizen, nor the police.   You seem to be of the mindset that since police are in a dangerous job, well, if a few innocents get shot along the way in the name of protecting themselves, so be it?