Hey CD, your prior statement, "...due process under field conditions was met," raised alot of flags in my head to indicate I really didn't know what 'due process' meant. So I went 'agooglin and found contrary to my preconceptions, you are correct that due process is not only served in a court of law:
Law.justia.com wrote:Non-Judicial Proceedings.—A court proceeding is not a requisite of due process. Administrative and executive proceedings are not judicial, yet they may satisfy the due process clause. Moreover, the due process clause does not require de novo judicial review of the factual conclusions of state regulatory agencies, and may not require judicial review at all. Nor does the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit a State from conferring judicial functions upon non-judicial bodies, or from delegating powers to a court that are legislative in nature. Further, it is up to a State to determine to what extent its legislative, executive, and judicial powers should be kept distinct and separate.
Now, though the article goes on at length to protect the viability of non-judicial due-process, the following paragraph lays out the
requirements for due process to be met:
Law.justia.com wrote:The Requirements of Due Process.—Although due process tolerates variances in procedure "appropriate to the nature of the case," it is nonetheless possible to identify its core goals and requirements. First, "[p]rocedural due process rules are meant to protect persons not from the deprivation, but from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property." Thus, the required elements of due process are those that "minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations" by enabling persons to contest the basis upon which a State proposes to deprive them of protected interests. The core of these requirements is notice and a hearing before an impartial tribunal. Due process may also require an opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination, and for discovery; that a decision be made based on the record, and that a party be allowed to be represented by counsel.
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/a ... civil.html
In this case, the police who cornered the shooter is unable to provide an
impartial hearing when they themselves are still under threat. And I wondered what sort of notice was given the shooter prior to the robot showing up (with cookies and milk and a note saying, "Surprise asshole!"). And what sort of a hearing was afforded the shooter?
See, what I've read defending the bombing of the perp appears morally grounded in the need for
expediency, for the safety of the officers and general public. Arguments that a shooter gave up the right to due-process the moment they pull a trigger can too easily turned on another who shoots in Self Defense. Arguments that a person only afforded protection of due process after he is in custody is patently absurd for it would only encourage shooting to silence a suspect who is yet "outside the protection of law" rather than apprehend them (Dirty Harry's wet dream).
So the idea here that there is a new definition for how due-process can be met is the "slippery slope" that we are discussing. If this new use of extra-judicial execution is allowed to stand as justice in the eyes of the law, then we are indeed headed down a dark path for civil rights and human rights.
Because after all, there is no such thing as a just and immutable Law. There is only society's impression for what is Just and Right. The Law will change so long as humans breath and reinterpret/clarify their intent. On such flimsy parchmet is hinged all our hopes and dreams for freedom and happiness (and also the livings of Sci-fi writers who describe a future dystopia for entertainment and to give fair warning).
