HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Torching the cabin was wr...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 12:54 PM

Torching the cabin was wrong.

That's my conclusion.

No, I'm not law enforcement. Obviously I wasn't there, but I think it was wrong on so many levels. I don't see how Dorner, once trapped in the cabin and surrounded, posed any threat. He couldn't possibly have had a rocket launcher, for example. He'd fled from the stolen vehicle on foot.

It was wrong from a PR perspective. Killing him under these circumstances will add a lot of weight in the minds of some, that law enforcement, specifically the LAPD, were trying to make sure that he didn't have a chance to ever speak again.

It was wrong from a moral perspective to kill him if he didn't pose a threat.

I believe that Dornan was a sick murderer bent on causing pain to those whom he believed wronged him. I don't buy that he was "pushed" into becoming a murderer by the LAPD even if his claims are all 100% factual, but that doesn't make what law enforcement did yesterday at that cabin, justifiable.

The details are odd. They pulled down all four walls of the cabin prior to the fire, so why did they lob the tear gas.

<snip>

A law enforcement source told the Times officers broke windows, fired tear gas and called to Dorner, the ex-Los Angeles police officer wanted for a total of four slayings and the wounding of three law enforcement officers, to surrender. The source said police used equipment to pull down the cabin walls "one by one, like peeling an onion" when Dorner failed to answer, and heard a single gunshot as they got to the last wall.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/02/12/LAPD-Burned-cabin-not-yet-entered/UPI-44271360645500
/#ixzz2KnpSwAL0

My guess is Dorner was already dead when they fired off the teargas.

Dorner wanted to go out this way. Law Enforcement on the scene, evidently wanted the same thing.


309 replies, 16231 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 309 replies Author Time Post
Reply Torching the cabin was wrong. (Original post)
cali Feb 2013 OP
sharp_stick Feb 2013 #1
HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #14
robinlynne Feb 2013 #136
frylock Feb 2013 #177
robinlynne Feb 2013 #183
Light House Feb 2013 #192
notadmblnd Feb 2013 #235
Light House Feb 2013 #239
notadmblnd Feb 2013 #244
Light House Feb 2013 #248
notadmblnd Feb 2013 #250
Light House Feb 2013 #253
notadmblnd Feb 2013 #254
Light House Feb 2013 #255
HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #210
backscatter712 Feb 2013 #41
sharp_stick Feb 2013 #73
bvar22 Feb 2013 #135
jeff47 Feb 2013 #226
Light House Feb 2013 #148
backscatter712 Feb 2013 #173
Light House Feb 2013 #176
randome Feb 2013 #182
backscatter712 Feb 2013 #186
robinlynne Feb 2013 #188
randome Feb 2013 #193
backscatter712 Feb 2013 #197
jberryhill Feb 2013 #203
robinlynne Feb 2013 #207
jberryhill Feb 2013 #208
robinlynne Feb 2013 #209
Light House Feb 2013 #195
backscatter712 Feb 2013 #205
robinlynne Feb 2013 #187
tinrobot Feb 2013 #238
sharp_stick Feb 2013 #268
tinrobot Feb 2013 #272
riverbendviewgal Feb 2013 #251
LiberalFighter Feb 2013 #294
jberryhill Feb 2013 #2
sharp_stick Feb 2013 #8
cali Feb 2013 #17
jberryhill Feb 2013 #21
cali Feb 2013 #27
beevul Feb 2013 #128
jberryhill Feb 2013 #129
beevul Feb 2013 #154
Earth_First Feb 2013 #3
Taverner Feb 2013 #57
dlwickham Feb 2013 #123
treestar Feb 2013 #142
NV Whino Feb 2013 #4
FSogol Feb 2013 #15
marions ghost Feb 2013 #45
MrScorpio Feb 2013 #59
marions ghost Feb 2013 #178
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #67
Marr Feb 2013 #113
louis-t Feb 2013 #81
DrewFlorida Feb 2013 #278
liberalmuse Feb 2013 #5
Ohio Joe Feb 2013 #6
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #215
countryjake Feb 2013 #237
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #219
countryjake Feb 2013 #233
DrewFlorida Feb 2013 #279
Dpm12 Feb 2013 #7
immoderate Feb 2013 #36
Mnemosyne Feb 2013 #48
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #79
frylock Feb 2013 #184
Cali_Democrat Feb 2013 #9
marions ghost Feb 2013 #52
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #10
Light House Feb 2013 #18
randome Feb 2013 #19
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #23
longship Feb 2013 #90
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #92
longship Feb 2013 #94
Light House Feb 2013 #102
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #117
longship Feb 2013 #122
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #133
longship Feb 2013 #149
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #158
longship Feb 2013 #180
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #194
Light House Feb 2013 #198
longship Feb 2013 #200
jberryhill Feb 2013 #201
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #212
DrewFlorida Feb 2013 #282
longship Feb 2013 #296
DrewFlorida Feb 2013 #298
longship Feb 2013 #300
ChisolmTrailDem Feb 2013 #11
cali Feb 2013 #22
marions ghost Feb 2013 #65
Scootaloo Feb 2013 #96
jberryhill Feb 2013 #104
Scootaloo Feb 2013 #106
randome Feb 2013 #109
Scootaloo Feb 2013 #112
RC Feb 2013 #167
randome Feb 2013 #168
jberryhill Feb 2013 #110
Scootaloo Feb 2013 #116
oldbanjo Feb 2013 #157
Light House Feb 2013 #115
marions ghost Feb 2013 #120
jberryhill Feb 2013 #121
randome Feb 2013 #125
jberryhill Feb 2013 #127
oldbanjo Feb 2013 #162
randome Feb 2013 #165
Light House Feb 2013 #171
Scootaloo Feb 2013 #126
marions ghost Feb 2013 #137
randome Feb 2013 #12
The Straight Story Feb 2013 #20
randome Feb 2013 #37
Light House Feb 2013 #66
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #86
Light House Feb 2013 #118
randome Feb 2013 #119
jeff47 Feb 2013 #227
NCTraveler Feb 2013 #13
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #16
jberryhill Feb 2013 #25
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #28
jberryhill Feb 2013 #33
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #46
jberryhill Feb 2013 #51
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #63
beevul Feb 2013 #159
jberryhill Feb 2013 #164
beevul Feb 2013 #181
jberryhill Feb 2013 #204
randome Feb 2013 #30
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #49
2pooped2pop Feb 2013 #71
Benton D Struckcheon Feb 2013 #34
marions ghost Feb 2013 #76
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #88
DallasNE Feb 2013 #202
arthritisR_US Feb 2013 #24
Light House Feb 2013 #29
arthritisR_US Feb 2013 #35
randome Feb 2013 #39
Light House Feb 2013 #40
Light House Feb 2013 #72
arthritisR_US Feb 2013 #131
Light House Feb 2013 #138
arthritisR_US Feb 2013 #141
GObamaGO Feb 2013 #174
Light House Feb 2013 #179
oldhippie Feb 2013 #42
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #26
madmom Feb 2013 #31
cali Feb 2013 #38
madmom Feb 2013 #93
indie9197 Feb 2013 #32
Dreamer Tatum Feb 2013 #43
jberryhill Feb 2013 #54
randome Feb 2013 #61
jberryhill Feb 2013 #98
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #91
jberryhill Feb 2013 #101
randome Feb 2013 #114
jberryhill Feb 2013 #124
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #196
jberryhill Feb 2013 #199
FarCenter Feb 2013 #44
LisaL Feb 2013 #47
cali Feb 2013 #53
jberryhill Feb 2013 #55
cali Feb 2013 #69
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #80
jeff47 Feb 2013 #232
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #234
jeff47 Feb 2013 #240
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #241
Light House Feb 2013 #243
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #245
jeff47 Feb 2013 #247
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #249
jeff47 Feb 2013 #252
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #256
LisaL Feb 2013 #56
randome Feb 2013 #58
cali Feb 2013 #74
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #82
LisaL Feb 2013 #83
Coyote_Tan Feb 2013 #68
NNN0LHI Feb 2013 #100
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #50
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #64
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #60
MFM008 Feb 2013 #62
Lex Feb 2013 #70
Light House Feb 2013 #75
Lex Feb 2013 #99
Light House Feb 2013 #107
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #77
jberryhill Feb 2013 #103
LisaL Feb 2013 #111
beevul Feb 2013 #152
randome Feb 2013 #156
beevul Feb 2013 #161
randome Feb 2013 #163
beevul Feb 2013 #172
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #78
midnight Feb 2013 #84
JoePhilly Feb 2013 #87
get the red out Feb 2013 #85
marions ghost Feb 2013 #105
LisaL Feb 2013 #108
IcyPeas Feb 2013 #89
LisaL Feb 2013 #97
Light House Feb 2013 #155
PM Martin Feb 2013 #95
RILib Feb 2013 #130
robinlynne Feb 2013 #132
DRoseDARs Feb 2013 #134
marions ghost Feb 2013 #140
treestar Feb 2013 #144
DRoseDARs Feb 2013 #146
treestar Feb 2013 #206
DRoseDARs Feb 2013 #214
treestar Feb 2013 #273
Light House Feb 2013 #190
DRoseDARs Feb 2013 #216
Light House Feb 2013 #218
robinlynne Feb 2013 #139
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #225
robinlynne Feb 2013 #229
Historic NY Feb 2013 #143
bvar22 Feb 2013 #145
DRoseDARs Feb 2013 #151
randome Feb 2013 #153
great white snark Feb 2013 #170
randome Feb 2013 #175
myrna minx Feb 2013 #169
JI7 Feb 2013 #191
countryjake Feb 2013 #147
Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2013 #150
austinlw Feb 2013 #160
secondwind Feb 2013 #166
markpkessinger Feb 2013 #220
rightsideout Feb 2013 #185
DallasNE Feb 2013 #189
bvar22 Feb 2013 #213
lynne Feb 2013 #211
DRoseDARs Feb 2013 #217
Light House Feb 2013 #223
DRoseDARs Feb 2013 #258
Light House Feb 2013 #259
DRoseDARs Feb 2013 #260
Light House Feb 2013 #261
DRoseDARs Feb 2013 #263
randome Feb 2013 #267
DRoseDARs Feb 2013 #270
Light House Feb 2013 #271
DRoseDARs Feb 2013 #285
Go Vols Feb 2013 #221
Light House Feb 2013 #224
steve2470 Feb 2013 #222
Purveyor Feb 2013 #228
robinlynne Feb 2013 #230
Purveyor Feb 2013 #257
Lil Missy Feb 2013 #231
cali Feb 2013 #264
Coyotl Feb 2013 #236
cbdo2007 Feb 2013 #274
Coyotl Feb 2013 #275
cbdo2007 Feb 2013 #287
Coyotl Feb 2013 #305
cbdo2007 Feb 2013 #306
DrewFlorida Feb 2013 #281
cbdo2007 Feb 2013 #288
DrewFlorida Feb 2013 #291
cbdo2007 Feb 2013 #307
DrewFlorida Feb 2013 #308
Kalidurga Feb 2013 #242
rightsideout Feb 2013 #246
backscatter712 Feb 2013 #262
davidpdx Feb 2013 #265
Fantastic Anarchist Feb 2013 #266
cbdo2007 Feb 2013 #269
DrewFlorida Feb 2013 #276
Dreamer Tatum Feb 2013 #277
DrewFlorida Feb 2013 #280
Dreamer Tatum Feb 2013 #283
DrewFlorida Feb 2013 #284
Dreamer Tatum Feb 2013 #286
DrewFlorida Feb 2013 #290
Dreamer Tatum Feb 2013 #293
DrewFlorida Feb 2013 #295
Light House Feb 2013 #289
DrewFlorida Feb 2013 #292
darkangel218 Feb 2013 #299
Light House Feb 2013 #302
darkangel218 Feb 2013 #297
Light House Feb 2013 #301
darkangel218 Feb 2013 #303
Light House Feb 2013 #304
DrewFlorida Feb 2013 #309

Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 12:58 PM

1. I'd say anyone who's killed multiple

people and responds to the cops by firing at them poses a pretty imminent threat.

He was a threat and IMO got exactly what he deserved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharp_stick (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:11 PM

14. They had acheived containment, but had no patience.

I can't say whether with darkness coming on if the commander on scene felt that nightfall would change that. With the cabin surrounded and night-vision technology available it seems questionable.

IMO, society didn't get what it deserved. Death by cop is undesirable, destruction of property is undesirable if it can be avoided. We'll never know if it could have been avoided because the police decided to launch devices into the building that
according to recorded conversation were part of a plan to burn the building down.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:22 PM

136. why would they have patience? for what reason? patience? really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #136)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:07 PM

177. who needs the rule of law? it's so archaic..

we should burn ALL the mutherfuckers out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #177)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:12 PM

183. No. I dont mean that. But we all suspected he would not be arrested alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #183)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:18 PM

192. You're right.

 

He made it very clear that he had not intention of being taken alive by his actions and his manifesto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #192)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:54 PM

235. And law enforcement made it perfectly clear with their first ambush on a citizen

that he wouldn't be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #235)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:02 PM

239. Dorner could have, during his week while on the run,

 

contacted a lawyer, media personell, and any number of people to escort him to any police station, didn't have to be an LAPD station, could have been any police dept. station, and surrendered himself with all the witness's present.
Instead, he CHOSE the course of action, he CHOSE not to surrender, he CHOSE to shoot it out with police and in the process, he killed 2 police officers and 2 civilians.
Dorner is responsible for Dorner being killed.

As far as what those LAPD officers did to the innocent civilians, those officers should be punished severely and Los Angeles should pay a hefty settlement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #239)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:12 PM

244. C'mon, they're all members of the same damn club

Certainly he is responsible. But that doesn't negate the proven fact that the authorities were never going to let him walk out alive. You really think that you can make me believe that the authorities would give a shit about the people with him? Hell, they didn't give a shit about shooting up people that weren't with him. There were two women in that truck! What if it been Dorner and an attorney going to turn himself in?

They wanted to kill the cop killer, they wanted to kill him bad and they did!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #244)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:17 PM

248. Oh really?

 

They were going to shoot or kill him in the police station? C'mon, be realistic, with all the intense scrutiny on this incident, the police wouldn't dare try anything. Especially with all the witness's saying that he surrendered himself to the proper authorities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #248)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:30 PM

250. he never would have made it to any police station

you and I both know that. Like I said, there were two women in that truck. There were witnesses. It didn't stop anyone from shooting up the truck nor the other car they ambushed. Those two women wern't shooting at the police when they were fired upon, their vehicle just vaguely fit the description. There was no attempt to cut them off, pull them over or order them out of the car. I believe it was something like 60 bullets that were fired into the truck from behind. That alone shows what law enforcement's intent was.

Judge, jury and executioner is the role law enforcement played in this tragedy and that makes me uncomfortable in a country where I was taught that people are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #250)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:36 PM

253. What do you mean he wouldn't have made it to any police station?

 

You're telling me that a man as resourceful as Dorner was couldn't figure out a way to make it to a police station?
If he made it his intention of surrendering himself and with a lawyer and media personel in tow, the police wouldn't dare try to anything, especially if he just showed up unannounced with an entourage of witness's.
It really doesn't matter, Dorner had NO INTENTION of giving up, his intention was to kill as many of the people listed on his manifesto as he could before they took him down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #253)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:45 PM

254. I think you give him too much credit

I think if he were really resourceful or smart, he would have killed many more than he did. I'm sure he had no intention of giving up. However, I'm just as certain that the authorities were never going to allow it either.

on edit.

you know, it's sad that I don't know what is worse. Someone driven by perhaps mental illness and feeling so much dispair and hopelessness that their life or anyone else's life any longer has value and commits such an atrocity or by those who are driven to kill by vengence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #254)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:51 PM

255. You may very well be right about the police never allowing him to surrender,

 

but if he had contacted a lawyer and the media to accompany him to a police station of his choosing, and if they had hidden him until they arrived at the station, then he would have been arrested and would have his day in court.

Instead, he CHOSE to go out in a, pardon the pun, blaze of glory while trying to take as many officers with him as he could.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #136)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 05:00 PM

210. In the interest of the concept of minimal damage if nothing else

Police forces are NOT judge, jury and executioner, and we would be making the mistake of the millenium to grant them such powers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharp_stick (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:39 PM

41. Exactly - they could have waited him out.

He was surrounded, all they had to do was cut off power & water, give him the opportunity to surrender.

I guess they weren't patient enough for that - burners were quicker...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #41)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:14 PM

73. This guy wasn't going to surrender

he had multiple chances to do so after murdering his first victim.

Kind of sad to lose the cabin though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharp_stick (Reply #73)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:21 PM

135. He would have surrendered, or killed himself eventually.

That solution is preferable to the one Law Enforcement chose yesterday,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharp_stick (Reply #73)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:41 PM

226. He was trapped in the cabin, and they had control over his water supply.

Really not that hard to wait him out. The guy still needed to eat and drink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #41)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:35 PM

148. You do know that the word burner

 

is slang for tear gas? It's because the tear gas burns the mucous membrane, the eyes and the nose, not because it's used to start fires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #148)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:02 PM

173. There are different types of teargas cannisters.

Some of them are "cold", specifically, the ones intended to be used indoors.

The ones the LAPD used on Dorner are "hot" - they release CS gas pyrotechnically, and should not be used indoors where they have a tendency to start fires. They literally burn, and it looks like these cannisters burned that cabin down. And that probably has something to do with the nickname "burner".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #173)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:07 PM

176. You are exactly right.

 

I just get a little irritated at people here who think that the word burner means that the police fired cannisters that were designed to start fires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #173)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:11 PM

182. I don't think it was the LAPD that lobbed the teargas in.

Maybe they didn't have the other variety on hand, for whatever reason. Or maybe they didn't expect the cabin to go up as readily as it did. I don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #182)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:13 PM

186. If it wasn't LAPD, who was it?

FBI was on the scene, but I'm going from what I heard from the recordings of the police radio traffic, which sounded like LAPD to me. "Burners are in place." "Burn the motherfucker!" That sort of thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #186)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:15 PM

188. The area is not in Los Angeles, or La County. It is east of LA. another city. in another county.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #186)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:19 PM

193. 'Burners' is another term for 'incendiary teargas canisters'.

(Can't believe how many times I've posted that.)

And as RobinLynne pointed out, LAPD wasn't even there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #193)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:22 PM

197. I know that.

The question is whether the law enforcement on-scene deliberately used the incendiary properties of their teargas canisters. I think it likely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #193)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:35 PM

203. Oh, I thought they were making room for these folks to come in....



Lob a few of THOSE burners into the house, and the results would have been... strange, to say the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #203)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:46 PM

207. what is the story behind this photo?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #207)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:48 PM

208. Behind that photo is the other side of your monitor screen


What story are you looking for?

You can connect with them and ask directly, I suppose.

http://www.burningman.com/blackrockcity_yearround/connectwithburners.html

Connect With Burners

There are myriad ways to connect with other Burners around the world, throughout the year ... whether in person, or online.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #208)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:50 PM

209. ahh. burning man. I did not get the reference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #186)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:21 PM

195. San Bernardino County Sheriffs Dept.,

 

along with the U.S Marshals Service and the FBI were there. It was probably a joint decision and operation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #195)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:45 PM

205. Fair answer. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #182)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:14 PM

187. LAPD werent there. San Bernardino Sheriffs were there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharp_stick (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:01 PM

238. The police don't get to convict people for murder

That's the court's job.

Yes, there was very strong evidence that Dorner was the killer, but until he had his day in court, he was innocent until proven guilty. I know it sucks to hear that, but that's how our justice system works.

As with every suspect for every crime, the police had the responsibility to take Dorner alive, if possible. They chose not to wait him out and let him surrender peacefully, but instead attacked the structure with incendiary tear gas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tinrobot (Reply #238)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:26 AM

268. He had multiple chances to surrender

he refused, he kept shooting at anything that moved, he shot himself instead of leaving the cabin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharp_stick (Reply #268)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:47 AM

272. We don't know the cause of death

All we know is that there is a charred body that has yet to be identified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharp_stick (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:33 PM

251. NO

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Justice should be served.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharp_stick (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 06:47 PM

294. He was contained and he was imminent threat out in the middle of nowhere?

All they needed to do was wait him out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 12:58 PM

2. "My guess is Dorner was already dead when they fired off the teargas."

The guy with the short straw gets to go check?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:03 PM

8. Not the short straw

the guy who's either two days away from retirement or the recent widower taking care of 6 foster kids.

Don't you watch movies man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:14 PM

17. why not just hold off on drastic action?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:18 PM

21. Until the dead guy comes out?


That's a pretty long wait.

The guy couldn't possibly set booby traps or have other surprises.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #21)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:20 PM

27. They'd already torn down the walls of the cabin

booby trapping seems exceedingly far fetched given the circumstances and time line. Waiting a few hours or few days hardly seems as onerous as you're trying to make it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:18 PM

128. Yeah, they don't have robots for stuff like that or anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #128)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:18 PM

129. Those are more limited than you apparently think

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #129)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:40 PM

154. So, explain, how limited are they?

Do they not have cameras on them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 12:59 PM

3. Shit, there was someone here the other day asking if Dorner deserved trial...

So you can bet your petunias that if there are folks among us at DU who feel death without a jury is acceptable that law enforcement was not going to lose sleep if they took Dorner dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Earth_First (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:52 PM

57. But...but...he's an EEEEVILDOER!!!!!

 

I can see nothing but good and evil, black and white...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Earth_First (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:07 PM

123. I doubt too many people associated with those he murdered are going to lose sleep over this

if he is dead

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Earth_First (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:29 PM

142. He deserved atrial like anyone else

But if he will not surrender, then what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:00 PM

4. It's not clear that the authorities torched the cabin

It may have been Dorner who torched it and then shot himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NV Whino (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:12 PM

15. Or indirectly started by the tear gas canister exploding. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NV Whino (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:45 PM

45. I think they used some kind of incendiary device

the way they were talking about burning. They had the armored vehicle already bashing walls. He didn't come out so they went to Plan B. "Burn"... and then he shot himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #45)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:54 PM

59. Damn Skippy. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #59)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:09 PM

178. We agree

on the modus operandi...

Sad scenario.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NV Whino (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:07 PM

67. There is video of them saying they were going to torch the cabin and burn the MF out.

It was posted here several times yesterday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #67)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:47 PM

113. We can't KNOW that! Even though they said they were going to, and then it happened. And there's

video of it.

WHO KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NV Whino (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:24 PM

81. Or shot himself, then set the....

Oh, wait...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NV Whino (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:11 PM

278. What do you mean it's not clear who torched the cabin?

Of course it is clear, CNN has footage which I heard myself of officers yelling to "torch him" just moments before they shot the canisters into the cabin. How much clearer does it need to be? The spokesman for the police said they did not torch the cabin on purpose, which is another way of saying, they did in fact torch the cabin just not intentionally.

The police played judge, jury, and executioner. The police murdered Dorner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:00 PM

5. Torching the cabin is one thing...

as it seems to be modus operandi for our enforcement agencies, but for an organization that is already considered racist, brutal, sexist and corrupt by many, saying, "Let's burn that motherfucker down", etc was an extremely poor choice of words. People are excusing it, but these are trained law enforcement officers who should damn well know better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:00 PM

6. They intentionally burned the cabin?

Do you have a link for that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohio Joe (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 09:43 PM

215. There are several threads from yesterday with video of them in the background

speaking of burning the MF out and of the "burn plan". If I feel better later I will see if I can dig up the links for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #215)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:00 PM

237. Are these the threads you meant?

Cops Torch Cabin Where Christopher Dorner Was Held Up
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101798582


Here's video of police shouting "burn that motherfucker" and "burn him out" as Dorner was trapped.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2364793

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohio Joe (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:18 PM

219. Here is a thread I just ran across

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022370689 but is not the couple of different ones posted here yesterday

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohio Joe (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:50 PM

233. There are two or more links to the scanner traffic audio...




And in this thread posted by "RetroGamer1971":

Here's video of police shouting "burn that motherfucker" and "burn him out" as Dorner was trapped.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2364793

Post #340
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2369698

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to countryjake (Reply #233)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:18 PM

279. Thank you for posting this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:02 PM

7. I think the

police had a pretty legitimate reason for torching that cabin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:30 PM

36. Reason? Yes. Legitimate? That's pushing the issue.

"Legitimate" is one of those frequently misused words. It's like "literally," used in a construction like "She literally chewed my head off."

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:48 PM

48. Yeah, who cares about due process. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:24 PM

79. No, they didn't. They had a legitimate reason to tear gas the guy.

They also had a legitimate reason to sit tight and wait him out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dpm12 (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:12 PM

184. lemme guess. you're white middle class without a care in the world..

I bet those cops in fullerton had a pretty legitimate reason to kill that homeless guy too, right sport?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:05 PM

9. I don't think there's any question they wanted to summarily execute him if given the opportunity

That was obvious when the cops were opening fire on innocent people thinking it was him. Is it wrong? Well if he's firing at police, then it's not wrong IMO. But the innocent people who were shot were just going about their business and obviously weren't firing at cops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:50 PM

52. That was a BIG mistake. Reno 911 comes to mind.

Which they will answer to.

They DID have the justification to execute him because they were dealing with a random mass murderer.

But Good God--they looked like Reno 911 re. those poor women who got shot...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:05 PM

10. Well said cali.

I agree that he was a sick murderer and I also agree that LAPD wanted him silenced, not captured. I see nothing heroic in his actions, I see even less heroism on the part of the LAPD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:14 PM

18. +1000.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:16 PM

19. I don't even think it was the LAPD that made the decision, was it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:19 PM

23. Perhaps not...but you can be sure they influenced it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:28 PM

90. This was NOT LAPD!!

Big Bear is in San Bernadino County and is miles from LA. LAPD have no jurisdiction there.

These guys were local/county LE, not LAPD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #90)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:30 PM

92. And you think LAPD has no influence there?

You may be correct, but I think LE always covers for its own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #92)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:33 PM

94. Repeat. Not LAPD. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #94)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:40 PM

102. Right.

 

It was the San Bernardino Sheriff's Dept,. in conjunction with the U.S. Marshal's Service and FBI, that made to the decision for the tactical op.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #94)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:50 PM

117. Okay...so CA

is full of immoral police departments....better?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #117)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:06 PM

122. The use of deadly force was appropriate.

This guy shot two cops that day.

Now, would I have set fire to the cabin? No!! But I wasn't there and know nothing about the situation. And neither was anybody else on this forum. He could have planted booby traps, for example.

Plus, there is circumstantial evidence that he shot himself before the fire got going, according to reports.

I have no idea why they chose to set the cabin on fire, or even if they did it deliberately. The info is a bit fuzzy.

Do I wish they hadn't burned the place down? You betcha! But I wasn't standing there where I could influence the decision.

But these questions should be asked in the coming days, which I guess is kind of what your post is saying. I would support that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #122)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:20 PM

133. We disagree on

the use of deadly force being appropriate. We don't yet know if he was firing on LE from the cabin. Besides, I have no problem with the police simply resorting to old siege warfare tactics. The cabin was surrounded, he wasn't going to escape...starve him out or let him shoot himself. Had he come out firing, deadly force would have been appropriate, but I have a problem with the bullying tactics of our police, our military and our government. We have more weapons, more bombs, more drones and we are happy to use them. I have a real problem with the LAPD opening fire on two women who were merely delivering newspapers.

Was he a threat? Well, he had been but I don't know what real threat he presented trapped in a cabin and we'll never know what might have come out in a trial will we? IMHO there was never any intention of taking him alive and that doesn't speak well of our LE or our own national morality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #133)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:36 PM

149. "We don't yet know if he was firing on LE from the cabin."

Do you mean other than the two shot police officers?

To say nothing of the other murders.

If this guy doesn't surrender, and keeps shooting at cops, he's going to get himself killed. Plain and simple.

That's what happened from all reports at the scene at the time. We even have a DUer up there who was posting yesterday afternoon about it as it went down. I was following two threads about it.

All of us on those threads agreed that Dorner would not be coming out of this alive.

Plus, there is circumstantial evidence that he shot himself before the fire got going.

But I do wish they hadn't set the cabin on fire. I can't see that it was necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #149)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:44 PM

158. They were shot before he got to this cabin, I believe....

This was the second cabin he broke into. I'm not saying he could have been taken alive...I am just saying I don't believe the police had any intention of doing so. The way it played out, tearing down the cabin walls, using tear gas and then burning down the cabin.... You're absolutely correct in wishing they hadn't done that...but what better way to destroy any evidence he might have had that his accusations were true...Which is NOT to say I think that would justify his killing spree...it doesn't.

Had the police settled in for a siege he could have fired all the rounds he wanted, without injuring anyone.

How cavalierly all of you accept the death of another human being.

All of us on those threads agreed that Dorner would not be coming out of this alive.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #158)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:10 PM

180. It's the rules of engagement of which Dorner was aware.

He, above all people, knew what shooting at LE would get him. He knew where this would end.

Of course, I regret his life being taken. I am not a heartless bastard. But being taken alive was a choice he could have made. He didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #180)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:20 PM

194. All the more reason to not burn down the cabin...

Look, Dorner was clearly deranged. And, I am not as certain as you that Dorner believed he had any chance of being taken alive.

I apologize, I did not mean to imply you are heartless. I am simply frustrated with a society that seems to think force is always the answer....no wonder the NRA thinks they can continue being as absurd about gun violence as they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #194)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:27 PM

198. It all comes down to the fact that Dorner

 

started this whole tragic incident by murdering 2 innocent people, shooting 2 Riverside police officers, killing one, car jackings, shooting at Fish and Game Wardens, shooting 2 SBCSD deputies, killing one and then exchanging gunfire with the officers surrounding the cabin and refusing to give up.
This whole incident really had only one ending and Dorner had no intention of it ending any other way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #194)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:32 PM

200. No apology necessary.

I took your statements as respectful, and your disdains as non-personal. Otherwise, I would not have responded.

We are basically on the same page here.

My point was that Dorner was a cop. He knew exactly how the police would act when he shot at cops. Any cop would know that.

If you shoot at a cop, they're gonna shoot back. If you die in such an exchange, the cop will very likely not be charged with a crime.

Like it or not, those are the rules.

If a person could change that, they could probably also find a way to world peace.

Thanks for the discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #194)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:32 PM

201. "seems to think force is always the answer"


I don't think anyone believes "force is always the answer."

As I've noted, if it was up to me... I don't even support the death penalty.

But if we are going to talk about things like "due process" and "Constitutional rights", Dorner was not some borderline case - there was probable cause to believe he was off the charts dangerous, had a demonstrated propensity to kill, and was well within the Constitutional boundaries of deadly force within the Constitutional limits, such as they stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #201)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 05:13 PM

212. Oh, I think there are many who do...

I'm not concerned with constitutional rights or due process...our revered constitution is a highly immoral document, it took several amendments to bring about a what little morality it contains.

I am completely frustrated with the way this was carried out. And if I've learned nothing else in my 65 years, I have learned that you can never trust the authoritarians to give you the full story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #180)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:31 PM

282. Tell the 4 people whom the LAPD almost killed in the previous days about the rules of engagement.

The LAPD showed no respect for rules or laws in their haste to murder Dorner, they had absolutely zero intention of taking him alive no matter the circumstances. They have shut the mouth of someone who knew them from the inside, someone who tried to expose them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #282)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 07:50 PM

296. The LAPD had nothing to do with Big Bear.

That was San Bernardino County Sheriffs with help from US Marshalls and FBI at Big Bear. Big Bear is miles and miles from LA and is way out of LAPD jurisdiction.

Two paper deliverers were in Torrance, CA. AFAIK, that's also out of LA jurisdiction. About 20 miles from LA. Can somebody verify if that was Torrance LE, not LA?

Why do people think Los Angeles is all of Southern California? I guess when they want to blame the LAPD for anything that goes wrong with LE in SoCal.

Just some fact checking for you. No offense intended.

I would welcome correction if I am mistaken. But I am sure LAPD were not at Big Bear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #296)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 07:53 PM

298. You didn't fact check anything, you aren't even sure of your own opinion!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #298)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:02 PM

300. I would welcome your correction, if you have one.

But LAPD were not at Big Bear. That I am quite sure about. It was SBCo with assistance from US Marshalls and FBI. This was reported the night of the standoff. LAPD would not be there as Big Bear is miles and miles from LA and in another county.

If you have documentation that says otherwise, let's see it. Otherwise, I stand by the information I received from DUers who were listening via scanners as it was going down and reportage from the scene.

Big Bear Lake is about 90 miles from LA. LAPD have no jurisdiction there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:05 PM

11. They ordered the helicopters to stand off specifically so they could

execute Dorner by fire. They burned him alive and that makes the cops as bad and as wrong as Dorner was killing Ms. Quan and her fiance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChisolmTrailDem (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:18 PM

22. You don't know that and no, I don't see the cops on the scene as being as bad as Dorner

He'd murdered 4 people in cold blood and he had the opportunity yesterday to turn himself in when stopped by the fish and game wardens. He chose to open fire instead. He bears a huge amount of responsibility for his fate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:59 PM

65. He had the opportunity to come out of the cabin too

with his hands up. They would have just rounded him up if he had attempted to surrender. He chose death.

It can be argued that they torched the cabin to give him a last chance to come out. They did want to wrap it up before night, without anyone else being killed.

But all that is speculation. We don't know for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #65)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:33 PM

96. I don't know if you knew this, but fire kills people

I don't know if this is what hte police did, but to see so many DU'ers saying "YEAH! BARBEQUE THE BASTARD!" is fucking disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #96)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:41 PM

104. Link to DUer saying that, please

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #104)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:43 PM

106. Do you support the police setting the cabin on fire?

If you do, there you go.

Support for this "tactic" is absolutely advocating murdering someone with fire. Maybe you're comfortable with the police doing that, so long as the target is a "bad guy." I'm not. And I'm disgusted by the vomitous sacks of trash who are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #106)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:45 PM

109. I doubt they did that deliberately.

'Burners' is another term for 'incendiary teargas canisters'. I'm guessing the fire was caused by the teargas canisters interacting with all the ammo that was stored there.

Of course that's just a guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #109)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:46 PM

112. As I said, I don't know if they did or not

But the attitude from so many DU'ers that it'd be perfectly okay if they did...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #109)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:55 PM

167. They burned the place AFTER they pulled the walls down?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #167)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:58 PM

168. Right now, it appears it was the teargas that started the fire.

'Burners' is another term for 'incendiary teargas canisters'. The teargas combined with all the ammo that was stored there probably started the fire.

Absent evidence to the contrary, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #106)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:46 PM

110. I don't even support the death penalty


Was it lawful? Yes.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/471/1

Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.

Majority: White, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #110)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:49 PM

116. Anything involving a cop is "lawful" since the other option is the cops turning against the citizens

"Well, we don't like this ruling, so we're just going to sit here and let all you fuckers deal with it, have fun" - Take a look at Montreal a few years back.

Legal or not, I can't swallow it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #106)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:44 PM

157. I agree with you the fire should never have been

started by the police it makes them look guilty of wanting to hide something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #96)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:48 PM

115. Actually,

 

fire isn't usually the cause of death, smoke inhalation or heat usually gets them first.
But gleefully dancing is a bit over the top, although I won't shed any tears for this monster, the country and world are a better place without this man

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #96)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:00 PM

120. He was a cop. I think it was speaking his language.

--the message being --when they started to tear the cabin down--"you have one last chance to surrender. Take it or leave it." Harsh yes. Do I think burning it was absolutely right? I need more info to say that. Do think what they did was most likely legal whether we agree with the law or not. Probably. Dorner was a random serial killer. They had a mandate to stop him by any means necessary.

Hey Scoot--Can you talk about this without saying sarcastic things like "I don't know if you knew, but fire kills people..." So would it have been better to fill him full of bullets, literally explode him? This way he did get to kill himself, which was a bit more honorable.

I certainly didn't say barbeque the bastard. And I don't agree with revenge killing. But I think they can argue they gave him a chance to surrender, and if he had come out with his hands up, I think they would have honored it. I certainly wish that had been the scenario. He was a tragic figure, deranged, psychotic. He needed help.

Maybe it was expedient, but that is something to be analyzed afterwards. There were few options.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #120)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:04 PM

121. He may have simply assumed they were redecorating


The message sent by tearing down the walls was ambiguous at best.

Instead of "surrender now", he may have taken it to mean they were concerned about his mood, and wanted to let in more light and air to cheer him up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #121)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:09 PM

125. Or to make it easier for the pizza delivery guy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #125)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:10 PM

127. That and the aromatherapy


Proper Feng Shui can really change the course of a tense situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #121)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:52 PM

162. They had to tear big holes so they could get the burners in the cabin.

It wasn't tear gas. They were trying to lite all sides of the building.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldbanjo (Reply #162)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:54 PM

165. 'Burners' is another term for 'incendiary teargas canisters'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldbanjo (Reply #162)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:00 PM

171. Yes it was tear gas.

 

Burners is the slang word for tear gas, because it burns the mucous membrane, the eyes and the nose.
The word burner does not mean to start a fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #120)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:09 PM

126. Yes, that absolutely is what you're saying

Well, more accurately, you're saying the police are always right no matter what because they're police, so they are above question even when it results in a suspect's death, and we should just always trust them.



^ comes to mind.

Shooting him when he presents an immediate threat is one thing. If he's shooting and catches a bullet himself, well, that happens. But if he's holed up and they set the place on fire? I can't accept that. If it's accidental, okay. Like I said, I have no idea if it was intentional or not, and my problem is with DU'ers who would support it even if it were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #126)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:24 PM

137. No way do I think that the police are always right

What do you take me for? No, I said upthread that they acted like Reno 911 in shooting the innocent women. I think you know that what you're saying here is bull and Britney's fulla bullsh*t too.

Whatever...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:05 PM

12. Didn't the tear gas cause the conflagration? With exploding ammo, etc?

I agree if they deliberately burned the cabin, it was the wrong thing to do. But did they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to The Straight Story (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:33 PM

37. Apparently 'burners' is also a term used for 'incendiary teargas cannisters'.

From your link, near the bottom of the thread, is another post with another link that identifies 'burners' this way.

I'm still withholding judgment on this. And even then I may be willing to come down on the side of the cops on this since waiting around indefinitely while a sharpshooter took shots at them was probably not a good idea.

Dorner was given the chance to surrender. He chose to stay hidden so he could kill more people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #37)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:05 PM

66. You're right.

 

Burners is the slang word for tear gas because it burns the eyes.
And Dorner had every chance to surrender and he CHOSE to go out the way he did.
He CHOSE badly and paid for it.
I'm not going to shed one single tear for his demise, the country and world is a little bit better place without him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #37)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:26 PM

86. Why the need to use INCENDIARY teargas canisters? Are they available in a

NONincendiary form?? Because if they are, then the incendiary ones are just arson tools and nothing more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #86)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:54 PM

118. As far as I know,

 

no there isn't. But I haven't really kept up on the new technology.
Doesn't really matter, Dorner had no intention of being taken alive and he CHOSE to end it this way.
He had ample opportunity to surrender in the week he was on the run and during his last stand and he didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #86)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:58 PM

119. I don't know the answer to that one.

Without substantial evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to give the FBI, the U.S. Marshals and the San Bernadino County officers the benefit of the doubt. The LAPD likely had little impact on this decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #86)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:45 PM

227. Yes, there are "non-incendiary" tear gas canisters.

They're the ones the police are supposed to use indoors to avoid causing a fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:06 PM

13. I don't have enough facts to make a determination one way or another.

How was the fire started?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:13 PM

16. The question should be did they INTENTIONALLY torch the cabin or

was that just a byproduct of the tear gas they used in what presumably was an attempt to force him out of the cabin.

Tear gas cannisters by themselves are not really an incendiary device, so one or more of them would have had to land on or near something that was more flammable then normal to trigger the fire.

There is a line between using enough force to cause an armed and dangerous fugitive to surrender, which may or may not result in the injury or death of the fugitive and just outright killing him. It is unlikely that we will ever know if law enforcement crossed that line.

I did not follow the cabin stand off especially closely, but I don't remember seeing anything where law enforcement made any attempt to negotiate.

Note this is not an attempt to defend a murderer, but concern about whether law enforcement had any intention of taking the murderer alive and deliberately ignored options that MIGHT have led to Dorner surrendering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:19 PM

25. Here's the line, btw


Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/471/1

Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.

Majority: White, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens

IF

(a) the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon

OR

(b) there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm,

THEN

deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape,

AND IF

where feasible, some warning has been given.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:22 PM

28. Strawman

Nobody is saying that the cops should not have employed deadly force when being shot at, burning down the cabin when they have it surrounded is a completely different thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #28)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:28 PM

33. The Constitution doesn't require "being shot at"


The majority, btw, consists of the entire liberal wing of the court.

You can't assert "Constitutional rights" without further recognizing the Constitutional role of the court in interpreting them.

In that case, by the way, a TN statute was deemed overbroad, and so that decision provided greater protection to suspects in Tennessee than the law provided.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #33)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:46 PM

46. irrelevent

The opinion you are quoting is irrelevant, nobody is complaining about the cops shooting back when shot at. That case has nothing to do with the discussion about whether it was appropriate to torch the cabin when the suspect was surrounded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #46)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:50 PM

51. "it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force"


The language does not require a gunfight scenario.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #51)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:57 PM

63. So there should be no limitation?

So according to you there should be no limitation on the level of force reasonable to stop somebody? Give the cops rocket launchers and bazooka's? hand grenades? Drones?
Seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #51)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:44 PM

159. It would seem that it does require deadly force to be the last resort.

"deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape"

Thats what "necessary" means

Now show it was indeed "necessary" at that time".

Good luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #159)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:54 PM

164. Or, you could look at the legal history of words like "necessary"


You couldn't have a close perimeter, given that the guy had a .50 sniper rifle which is lethal at long range and he had the skill to use it well.

He had already been holed up in one house and had demonstrated his training in evasion and escape.

It was getting on toward dark.

There was probable cause to believe he was exceptionally dangerous, including three dead already and one during the process of getting to, or at (it is still not clear) his then-present situation.

He was certainly warned.

I'm not seeing a missing qualifier there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #164)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:11 PM

181. So much that just isn't reality in your post.

"You couldn't have a close perimeter, given that the guy had a .50 sniper rifle which is lethal at long range and he had the skill to use it well."

Effective accurate range - 1000 yards plus. Now...since we know they weren't holding a perimeter of 1000 yards...Non sequitur.


"He had already been holed up in one house and had demonstrated his training in evasion and escape."

So what.

"It was getting on toward dark."

Ever heard of portable flood lights? The cbs LA channel was talking about them, and talkinbg about them being brought in at one point yesterday. Another Non sequitur.

"There was probable cause to believe he was exceptionally dangerous, including three dead already and one during the process of getting to, or at (it is still not clear) his then-present situation."

Innocent in the eyes of the law, until proven guilty.

You still haven't shown that burning the cabin was necessary to prevent his escape.

And you may as well just give up, because such can not be shown.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #181)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:38 PM

204. Oh it can't, can it?

And the cops are not entitled to a presumption of innocence, in your view.... why?

Well then, I will call the next case, your honor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:22 PM

30. That provides some needed perspective. Thanks.

I'm still vacillating on this but I suppose 'flushing him out' with a fire is better than standing around waiting for Dorner to surprise them with a long-distance shot to someone's head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:49 PM

49. Ok, thanks n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:13 PM

71. If that's the case they shouldn't have a problem admitting it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:29 PM

34. The story was...

...that they tried and got nothing but shots back.
Eh whatevs. He was a dead man one way or the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:19 PM

76. I believe the cops deliberately torched it

after tearing into a couple of walls with an armored vehicle. At that point, especially as a cop--he would have understood the message to be crystal clear--"we're coming IN if you don't come OUT--last chance."

So then when he didn't emerge they figured they had the justification to burn it--to make sure he was done for. We will know if he actually did shoot himself --that seems the kind of thing that should be made public. Probably he did, so as to avoid facing anything. He was certainly beyond caring about life or living.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:27 PM

88. +1 000 000 000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:32 PM

202. Civilian Tear Gas Would Not Start A Fire

So they likely used a military type that is also an incendiary device.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:19 PM

24. From the radio communication: They torched the place, tear gas canister starting the fire is bogus,

IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:22 PM

29. It's just your opinion that they purposely torched the place.

 

Tear gas canisters have been known to start fires. I'll wait for the official report before I pass judgement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #29)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:30 PM

35. "Seven burners deployed and we have a fire." ....

"burn that motherfucker" and "burn him out" .... It will be interesting to see what the investigation reveals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #35)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:35 PM

39. See post #37 about the term 'burners'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #35)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:35 PM

40. You are right.

 

It'll be interesting what the official investigation reveals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #35)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:13 PM

72. The term "burners" is slang for tear gas

 

because it burns the eyes, throat, nose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #72)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:19 PM

131. Ya, I was just reading about that and it

makes sense. I have very mixed emotions concerning this entire case. However, no matter if his grievances were valid or not the actions he took were completely self destructive.

P. S. thanks for the explanation on the tear gas issue

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #131)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:25 PM

138. This whole incident is tragic.

 

Nobody on both side won, just death and wreckage for the families of those killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #138)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:29 PM

141. I couldn't agree more or have said it better!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #29)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:03 PM

174. I am going to venture a guess that any official report

Will be quite sanitized and will not give detail as to what truly happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GObamaGO (Reply #174)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:10 PM

179. Given what we've seen before,

 

it wouldn't surprise me in the least, however with the intense scrutiny on this incident, I think we'll find out more than usual.
Time will tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:39 PM

42. Anybody who knows anything about tear gas canisters ......

 

..... knows that they usually start fires. The active particulates are transported by smoke, which requires a fire. It is supposed to be contained, but often isn't.

Whenever we set up tear gas training, the canister goes in a metal bucket for a reason. Same with smoke grenades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:20 PM

26. According

According to the available audio, it's pretty clear that law enforcement planned to burn down the cabin and did so. Hard to draw any other conclusion when the radio transmissions say to go ahead with the burn that had been discussed and shortly thereafter report that "we have a fire going." Couple that with the fact that they had fire trucks standing by a short distance away and it's pretty obvious that torching the cabin was a planned tactic for ending the siege.

Which begs the question, how could law enforcement be sure that there was nobody else in the cabin besides Dorner, when they gave the go ahead to torch it? In my opinion, it sets a bad precedent in terms of reasonable use of force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:24 PM

31. From things I've read this was not

LAPD, but a different county, out of their jurisdiction. Be that as it may, if some one is shooting at me and has already murdered one of my co-workers, I think I am entitled to react. But until all the facts are out, all anyone, including you, is doing is speculating and assuming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madmom (Reply #31)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:33 PM

38. A police operation like this should never be about "being entitled to react"

And I didn't say the LAPD was responsible. I used the term law enforcement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #38)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:31 PM

93. "... specifically the LAPD..."

"Killing him under these circumstances will add a lot of weight in the minds of some, that law enforcement, specifically the LAPD, were trying to make sure that he didn't have a chance to ever speak again"

and as I said before..we still don't know what happened, you are assuming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:27 PM

32. There could have been hostages in there...

Or maybe they searched it while Dorner was dead and didn't see any. I would hope that they thought about a hostage situation. But then again, the cabin he was hiding in was right across the street from the command post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:40 PM

43. No one had any of these moral or ethical issues about Dykes last week.

Gee, I wonder why THAT is.

Wait, I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dreamer Tatum (Reply #43)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:50 PM

54. Or about "Kai the Hitchhiker"


Who apparently killed a guy with a hatchet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #54)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:56 PM

61. I don't think he killed the dude, just batted him on the head a few times, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #61)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:36 PM

98. 2:47 "So, he's dead. Good."



Okay, so Kai wasn't there and you were. Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #54)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:30 PM

91. He didn't kill him, he whacked him in the head DURING AN ATTACK ON A WOMAN.

Nobody died.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #91)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:37 PM

101. So Kai is a liar now?


2:47 "So, he's dead. Good."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #101)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:47 PM

114. I'm not going to watch a video at work but I did not know that.

You're right, there is a disconnect there. Superman and Batman would have taken all measures possible to avoid loss of life, even of the perp.

But Superman and Batman aren't real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #114)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:08 PM

124. As every knows, when beating someone on the head with a hatchet...


"sah-mash, sah-mash" will typically stun, but "sah-mash, sah-mash, sa-MASH" is a deadly impact.

It takes years of training on the hatchet range to develop those finely-tuned non-lethal impacts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #101)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:21 PM

196. I don't know that I would take his comment as proof that the guy is dead.

Kai, bless his heart, is a tad "off".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #196)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:27 PM

199. But here you have Kai...

Who

(1) Applied what anyone would consider to be deadly force - Sa-MASH! - to wit, three blows to the head with a hatchet, and

(2) Apparently believed it to be effective to that end.

Whether Kai is mistaken as a matter of fact - and quite frankly, he was much closer to the incident than you or I - is not really relevant to Kai's intent or understanding of the import of his acting on that intent.

I did not mean to suggest that I know for a fact that the guy is dead, but I am willing to give Kai, who apparently says so, the benefit of the doubt, pending further information otherwise. I am willing to accept Kai's statement at face value as to his intent and understanding of the consequences of his action, however, since his mistake of fact is not relevant to his state of mind. He is authoritative on that point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:44 PM

44. I doubt that LAPD had much to do with the final phase

By that time "US Marshals" had arrived.

There is lots of fully automatic and burst firing on the audio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:46 PM

47. How in the world can you claim he didn't pose a threat?

He just allegedly killed a cop and injured another one (a short time prior to getting into the cabin).
Unbelievable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #47)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:50 PM

53. He was contained.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #53)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:51 PM

55. ...and trained in escape and evasion

...in addition to police tactics and operations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #55)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:10 PM

69. really? he was going to escape from a heavily surrounded cabin with no wall? Please

that's bullshit and we both know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #69)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:24 PM

80. At night, in the woods. Stranger things happen every minute.

It's not exactly implausible that he could have set off a few explosions and then escaped while cops were distracted.

All it would take would be one cop looking the wrong direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #80)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:48 PM

232. If only our police had some sort of "night-vision" equipment. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #232)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:53 PM

234. Which doesn't see through smoke.

And isn't nearly as good as normal vision in day time.

Plus, the chance someone else would have gotten hurt or killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #234)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:03 PM

240. Well, perhaps then the police shouldn't have set a fire.

There's plenty of infrared equipment on the ground and in police helicopters to make sure Dorner did not sneak away undetected.

As for injuries or deaths, there's no need to operate that equipment from within line-of-sight of the cabin. The equipment has to see the cabin, the people monitoring the equipment do not.

If he had decided to "make a run for it", then there indeed could have been danger. But there was plenty of danger in the approach they did use - we're talking about an area where campfires are routinely banned due to the danger of starting a wildfire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #240)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:05 PM

241. Fire fighting equipment was on hand in case it spread.

Long story short, he was going to die in that cabin one way or the other. They were going to shoot him, or he was going to shoot himself. It was never going to be them tackling him or otherwise disarming him.

And that's his doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #241)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:10 PM

243. That's right.

 

He made it crystal clear by his manifesto and his actions that he wasn't going to be taken alive.
Shooting 2 deputies, with one dying, didn't help his case.
I've been saying all day that Dorner, and Dorner alone, is responsible for what happened to Dorner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #243)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:12 PM

245. Some people just can't stand the thought of the state using violence against anyone

who says stuff they agree with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #241)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:14 PM

247. So let him shoot himself.

The cabin was apparently not being occupied, so it would have little to no food in it - especially after the walls had been torn down. And the police had control of his water supply.

So either you let the hunger and thirst wear him down to where he decides to give up, or he shoots himself.

There was no need to accelerate the situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #247)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:18 PM

249. Well, except the danger wasn't going to go away and it would in fact get more dangerous at night

when he'd likely try to slip away.

If the guy's going to wind up dead, might as well make it sooner rather than later and make sure no one else gets hurt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #249)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:35 PM

252. There's plenty of people claiming they won't be taken alive

For example, there's this Mr. Nugent who's been in the news recently.

When push comes to shove, a good portion of them surrender.

And again, it would be pretty easy to make sure he didn't slip away - and go ahead and shoot the hell out of him if he does.

But he was hiding in a mostly-destroyed cabin. He was contained for the time being.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #252)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:03 AM

256. How many people has Ted Nugent killed when they tried to arrest him?

They were not required to do everything possible to take him alive. That is not the standard, nor should it be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #53)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:52 PM

56. And? He still presumably had guns.

Which he could have used to kill more cops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #53)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:54 PM

58. How would anyone 'contain' him?

Surround the entire area and wait to be picked off by a sharpshooter? Move further out where they were out of range? That would make it easier for him to escape unnoticed, especially at night.

I don't think there were any good options here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #58)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:15 PM

74. you do know the police often use floodlights, right? And the cabin walls had been torn down

He wasn't possessed of frickin' superpower, for crying out loud. There is no way that he could have escaped or picked anyone off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #74)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:24 PM

82. Floodlights work a lot better on city blocks than in the woods. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #74)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:25 PM

83. Says you safely behind your computer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #53)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:10 PM

68. Supposedly with a .50 caliber sniper rifle...

 

As an average to above average marksman I can hit a target at 600 yards with that thing.

If he had any decent level of competency with it the range goes up.

At a certain point, you can't just wait for him to get all tuckered out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #53)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:37 PM

100. cali. Dorner had a .50-caliber sniper rifle

http://www.kbzk.com/news/authorities-confident-christopher-dorner-search-over-body-will-need-to-be-id-d/

>>>As he barricaded himself in an empty cabin, the man believed to be Dorner fired a .50-caliber sniper rifle, shooting two deputies, killing one of them.Following tactical teams, CBS News' crew was caught in the middle of a second firefight<<<

I don't know that much about guns. But I think anyone snooping around Dorner and that gun were as good as dead if he spotted them.

This is a touchy situation. Almost like sending the cops on a suicide mission. Bad situation. Bad deal all the way around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:49 PM

50. I agree with you and I think you are brave to say it. Not afraid to be called a murder "apologist".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #50)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:57 PM

64. There was a lot of murder happening yesterday.

Pretty much everybody who died was murdered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:55 PM

60. "Wrong" is so relative.

Was it wrong because they weren't 100% certain it was the perp? Well, yes.

Was it wrong because they pretended the fire was caused by "hot" tear gas? Sure.

Was it wrong because "vengeance is mine, said The Lord?" If that's your thing.

Was it wrong because the poor bastard didn't get a trial? Legalistically maybe.

Was it wrong because burning someone alive is kinda amoral and subhuman? That, too.

Was it wrong because taking a life is just plain wrong? Only if you think about it.

But, he was a bad guy, right? So, "burn the motherf*cker!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:56 PM

62. WAIT

ok I'm not a conspiracy type but the cabin was empty, or was it? Wonder if a transient was in there. There is a body yes, but in a scorching fire they find Dorners drivers license close to the body??? Im waiting till the DNA comes back on this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #62)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:12 PM

70. Finding the driver's license is weird.

In that inferno, the DL was intact enough to read?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #70)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:18 PM

75. If the DL was in a wallet, as it seems to be the case,

 

it could have very well survived intact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #75)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:37 PM

99. I want that kind of wallet! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #99)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:43 PM

107. If the wallet was closed, and I'm just guessing that it was,

 

then the fire would've had a hard time burning the contents due to lack the lack of air inside the fold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:20 PM

77. Torching it was indeed wrong. We are a nation of laws and our law ENFORCEMENT people are bound by

the same laws as the rest of us. It's one thing to use tear gas if you need to. It's another thing entirely to use an incendiary device OR one masquerading as tear gas with the specific intent of causing a fire in order to kill someone.

I am sick to death of all the people calling for outright murder of people before they have even been indicted, let alone tried and convicted. You are a bunch of RW authoritarian thugs, people, and you won't even admit it to yourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #77)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:40 PM

103. How is this not law?


Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/471/1

Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.

Majority: White, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #103)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:46 PM

111. Yep. Use of deadly force sounds perfectly legal to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #103)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:39 PM

152. Has anyone established that ...

Has anyone established that at the time the fire was set that deadly force was necessary to prevent his escape?


"Necessary", implies to me, that there was no other way at the moment the fire was set.

They had other options, which is why that court case argument doesn't hold water.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #152)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:43 PM

156. Read the rest of the thread, please.

The guy was a sharpshooter. Surrounding the cabin for days -weeks?- would likely have meant more dead officers.

Was a fire deliberately set? 'Burners' is another term for 'incendiary teargas canisters'. It's likely they started the fire along with all the ammo that was stored there

So, yes, I would consider it 'necessary' in order to stop Dorner from killing anyone else. He had plenty of opportunities to surrender.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #156)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:47 PM

161. It doesn't matter what he "was".

What matters is what he was "doing" at the time the fire was set, to whether they met the legal burden of the case law the poster I responded to is trying to lean his argument on.

Due process is for everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #161)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:53 PM

163. I don't get you.

If there is a pause in gunfire, then it's not okay to lob teargas into the cabin? Tear gas should only be used at the exact moment a suspect is firing at someone?

I'm no law expert but I don't see any problem with the FBI, the U.S. Marshal's Service, the San Bernadino PD and the LAPD taking the measures they did. That's enough 'due process' for me.

Now if someone can suggest they all colluded to deny this guy his rights, I'm up to hearing about it. But I don't see it at this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #163)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:01 PM

172. "Pause".

You mean, if the gunfire stopped.

The court case that poster cited says "deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape".

That seems pretty clear.


I don't see the situation as one where lighting the cabin on fire was "necessary" to prevent escape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:22 PM

78. They went overboard on the use of incendiary tear gas, but under

the circumstances I wouldn't have fucked around with this guy either. Priority was (1) making sure he couldn't slip away again (night was coming), and (2) making sure no one else besides him got hurt.

His personal safety was a remotely distant tertiary concern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:25 PM

84. What the heck did this guy know?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #84)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:27 PM

87. Maybe that we never actually sent men to the Moon.

Or that Obama planned the Sandy Hook massacre so that he could declare a state of emergency and take everyone's guns!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:25 PM

85. If they intentionally torched the cabin

I agree, that was wrong. Not the same thing as shooting someone resisting arrest and trying to kill law enforcement officers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to get the red out (Reply #85)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:42 PM

105. Dunno

Which is better? Getting shot to death or burned out? This way seems to have given him the option to kill himself rather than come out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to get the red out (Reply #85)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:44 PM

108. They send it tear gas.

That's what probably caught the cabin on fire.
Not exactly intentional, but not exactly unexpected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:28 PM

89. cabin walls being torn down?

I watched this on tv and didn't see any bulldozers or the like. How were the walls pulled down exactly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IcyPeas (Reply #89)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:36 PM

97. I don't think that makes any sense either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IcyPeas (Reply #89)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:42 PM

155. They were using an armored vehicle.

 

I saw a snippet of it on the TV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:33 PM

95. k/r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:19 PM

130. they were going to kill him instead of capture him

 

Anyone who thinks otherwise is living on some other planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:20 PM

132. That story does not mesh with the video tapes. (one single bullet, walls coming down, etc.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:21 PM

134. We are a nation of laws w/explicit rights to juries & prohibitions against cruel&unusual punishments

This was sick and unAmerican on so many levels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #134)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:27 PM

140. What America are you living in?

...welcome to the post Boosh era. Where the "fine lines" and the "gray areas" got a lot finer and grayer, or no longer exist.

(And that doesn't mean I think it's right.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #134)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:30 PM

144. Once you surrender

does an accused have unlimited rights to kill first? As many as possible until he decides to quit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #144)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:34 PM

146. Inane non sequitur is inane. You are awarded no points. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #146)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:45 PM

206. You had the non sequitur

Speaking as if no one has a right to trial because police can shoot at a fugitive who is shooting at them. You left that part out entirely. People who are arrested or turn themselves in get a trial. You're pretending that it is in doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #206)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 09:29 PM

214. Except you're leaving out the part were they never had any intention to take him alive.

Both video and radio scanner evidence strong supports that they set out to burn him alive. The "shoot out" is a revision of the police were initially talking about: The ammunition inside the cabin going off from the heat of the fire. The only shot from inside the cabin they spoke about at the time - separate from the "shoot out" - was likely the one he'd used to kill himself once he knew he was done for. Instead there's talk amongst the police about using "burners" on the cabin and wondering if the heat will get him in the basement. "Burners" are NOT flashbangs nor are they teargas. Three entirely separate classes of grenades. Burners are a military-grade weapon that are used exactly for what they sound like: Burning things.

Edit: I will clarify myself: The two officers that had been injured/killed may have been involved in an actual shootout with him, but it's also possible that they'd been hit but live ammunition inside the cabin going off from the heat of the fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #214)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 02:07 PM

273. Only they know what was in their minds

And this guy is not just some guy - they knew what he wanted and that he did not want to be taken alive. This case is not threatening our rights and it's not summary execution. Had he carefully stated he would surrender, they would have done that even if they had not wanted to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #134)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:16 PM

190. Yes,

 

and Dorner violated those rights, he never had any intention of being taken alive, he CHOSE to die the way he did, he could have surrendered at any time during the week he was on the run or during his last stand at the cabin.

He CHOSE not to and he CHOSE badly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #190)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 09:44 PM

216. Our rights don't work they way you think they do.

He chose to be a murderous fuckwit, but that does not negate his access to his rights. This Wild West mentality you have almost got three innocent civilians murdered in cold blood by the LAPD/TPD, because the officers involved thought they'd found him and decided to shoot first, ask questions later. None of the victims nor their vehicles matched his appearance or vehicle (to say nothing of the horrendously bad aim of the officers that attacked the first 2 victims... most of their bullets hitting houses rather than the vehicle) but the officers decided he had negated his rights and they had a license-to-kill on him, restraint be damned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #216)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 09:51 PM

218. You have me confused with someone else.

 

I didn't condone what LAPD did by firing on those innocent people, all I said was that Dorner CHOSE the course that he did, no one else and he CHOSE not to surrender despite have numerous chances to do so while on the run or during his final stand, but he made it clear that he wasn't going to be taken alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:25 PM

139. I dont think this was ever going to be a turn the other cheek situation. he shot police family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #139)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:41 PM

225. I didn't get a chance to respond to you in the thread that was locked, but....

....yes, I do know Dorner was fired from the LAPD in 2009. There could be a variety of reasons why Dorner still had a police badge and ID, like claiming at some point before he was fired that he had lost his badge and/or ID and got a replacement. He wouldn't have been the first police officer to have done that, and he won't be the last.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #225)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:46 PM

229. interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:29 PM

143. Did you see any of the CBS video?

Try watching it and listing to his fusillade of automatic fire at the cops...he threw out some smoke grenades also which the cops picked up and threw back. Note you can hear the single gun shot too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:31 PM

145. Oh-Oh, Cali. NOW you have done it!

According to some here,
You have now sided with Dorner and endorsed his "murder spree".

You're either WITH them,
or against them!!!!!
Do you want the Terrorists to WIN!!???

Understanding, compassion, and nuance are SOOOOO passe'.
What are you, a stinkin Hippie or something??!!!!
Go listen to some old Beatles records or something,
and let The ADULTS take care of this!

EVERYBODY knows that the only practical solution here was to burn down the cabin with him inside,
roast him to death,
and then cheer, hoot, and High Five!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #145)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:36 PM

151. This mess has really brought out the blood-thirsty, hasn't it? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #145)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:39 PM

153. If you'll read the rest of this thread, you'll see that it's not a black & white issue for most.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #153)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:59 PM

170. Where are all these blood-lusting mobs of death-mongers I keep hearing about?

Thanks for pointing out that's it's not a simple issue for most of us. Wanting someone stopped does not necessarily mean wanting one's demise. If he is dead I am thankful that he cannot hurt anyone else. My thankfulness has nothing to do with revenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to great white snark (Reply #170)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:04 PM

175. I would always have preferred Dorner to be taken alive.

I don't believe in the death penalty. For anyone. I would bet most DUers think the same.

But with the FBI, the U.S. Marshal Service, the San Bernadio PD and the LAPD all working together, I'm much more inclined to think there is enough expertise gathered in one place for them to be fairly certain of what they were doing.

I don't have absolute faith or trust in LE but in a case like this, I'm not going to second-guess them all that much, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #145)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:58 PM

169. The mob will now swarm after her. It's wild to watch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #145)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:17 PM

191. not even close, this post is different from the others which are rightly being criticized as

sympathy for dorner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:34 PM

147. What we had there was a failure to communicate...

I'm not trying to be flip or anything, but I really can't forget the fact that this guy was ex-cop, himself.

Listening to that audio of the San Bernardino Sheriff's Dept. totally freaking, hysterically calling for burning Dorner out, and also that other one, where the scanner traffic indicates that they consciously went to Plan B, "the burn", I have a feeling that all of the law enforcement who were on the scene late yesterday afternoon (ie. Sheriff's Dept, Swat, Federal Marshals, FBI, and who knows what all else) wanted this manhunt over before nightfall. They knew that they were dealing with an expert marksman, ex-cop, former military, who had gone rogue to the extreme, and they dealt with that, accordingly.

I agree that the way they handled things was wrong, but I think that it was to be expected.

None of the things I've seen reported during this past week, not the planned and then desperate actions taken by Dorner or the manner in which various law enforcement (probably planned, but also desperate) handled the situation, were right from a humane perspective, but none of it surprises me. I don't find much cause to use the term "moral" and law enforcement or even ex-cop, within the same sentence. I am no fan of our justice system, that's all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:36 PM

150. I would have liked to have this guy in custody myself....

Specifically, to have him studied.

It could have shed some light on what drives people to do this crap and maybe make it possible to spot the warning signs in others to prevent it from happening again.

You have to remember, this guy saw himself as the hero of this saga. He thought he was dispensing justice.

As if it's justice to go after innocent family members of people you feel screwed you over just because you want them to feel your pain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:46 PM

160. If Dorner was in there armed

and still able to shoot more people, then I think law enforcement needed to end it. The guy had proven he was a cop-killer, so as long as he's capable of doing more harm, even from within a cabin, you bring it to an end as swiftly as possible. Otherwise, let's say you wait a few hours for him to give himself up and he shoots and kills more cops as they surround the cabin. How would you justify that 'wait him out solution' to the spouses and kids of the dead cops? The guy's obviously armed, dangerous, and ready to kill more people. I'm glad they took him out sooner rather than later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 03:55 PM

166. The cops did not want to have to deal with this man after dark.. I don't blame them....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to secondwind (Reply #166)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:23 PM

220. It is their job to deal with dangerous people and situations . . .

. . . and to do so within the confines of the law. If they're not willing to do that, they belong in another line of work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:13 PM

185. So the police torched it?

I thought that it was a tear gas canister that set it off since cabins are pretty much all dried wood and in some cases that can cause a fire.

If the police were going to torch the place they may as well just have used a drone to fire a missile at it. Oooops. Don't give them any ideas.

When I first heard on the news that a "tactical response" was in progress, I envisioned a Swat team tossing tear gas in there and storming the place. When I first saw the smoke that's what I thought happened but then there was alot of smoke. Obviously not tear gas. I guess torching the place and knocking down the walls can be considered a "tactical response."

He did kill another police officer. I imagine all bets were off after that. "Kill the MFer!!!!"

I guess he's Crustipher Dorner now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:15 PM

189. This Reminded Me Of Police Torching The Symbionese Liberation Army Safehouse

Back in 1974. Like this, it was treated like a military operation so the house was torched by tear gas canisters and allowed to burn. That happened even though authorities thought that Patty Hearst was likely inside (that turned out not to be the case, thankfully). In both cases cop killers were holed up and armed so we're talking about some terrible people but roasting them alive as a tactic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #189)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 05:40 PM

213. Don't forget THIS one:

Philadelphia Police Bombs MOVE Headquarters Killing 11, Destroying 65 Homes

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4651126

The Philadelphia police actually Dropped a Fu**ing BOMB on a block of 125 year old row-houses, and Burned Down the whole damned block, killing 5 children, six adults.

But "they" were asking for it,
so its ALL GOOD!!!
The Po-Po Got-their-Man,
and there was much celebration, and High Fives ALL AROUND!!!


DU wasn't around back then,
so I can't tell you how many were Cheering the Burning Deaths, Destruction, and Execution without a Trial,

.....but I CAN tell you what I thought at that time:
I thought,
"My God.
We are heading into a fu**ing Nightmare."


It has only gotten worse since then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 05:12 PM

211. At this point, are they even sure what caused the fire?

The assumption is that it was ignited by tear gas thrown in by the police. I have no problem with them using tear gas to try to remove him. He really didn't leave them any other options. Unfortunate that tear gas can ignite fires but he had many opportunities to give himself up and refused. Not to mention that he had lobbed a smoke bomb at them in an attempt to flee the cabin.

I'm sure there were concerns about it getting dark and the darkness giving him an advantage for a possible escape. They couldn't allow him to continue killing and that's what he had vowed to do.

I think you said it best when you said in the OP "It was wrong from a moral perspective to kill him if he didn't pose a threat." While that is true, that certainly was not the case in this instance. He very much posed a threat to each officer there. He was trained by both military and police - he was better armed than the police - and every officer there was in harms way. All he had to do was get off a lucky shot out the window.

The police may have done some things wrong but yesterday wasn't one of them. The guy died the way he wanted to and he won't kill again. That's a win-win in my book.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lynne (Reply #211)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 09:46 PM

217. On radio scanners, the police talked about deploying "burners" which are separate...

...from teargas and flashbang grenades. Burners are used for what they sound like they're used for: Burning things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #217)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:34 PM

223. They are not separate from tear gas.

 

Burners is slang for the type of tear gas cannister used by police, it is a pyrotechnic type of tear gas cannister, the term "burner" is because this type of tear gas burns the mucous membrane, the eyes and the nose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #223)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:13 AM

258. I can't find any reference outside of this event showing "burner" to be slang for teargas...

Highly suspicious and convenient claim. Smells like revisionist, ass-covering bullshit from law enforcement desperate to whitewash. Regardless, out of all the teargas they could have used, they deliberate CHOSE the one known to start fires and audio recordings of the incident show that. Moreover, SB could have used military hand-me-down burners that do what they say on the box: Fires aren't incidental, they're by design.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #258)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:26 AM

259. I speak from experience.

 

What's yours?
It's the slang word for these type of tear gas cannisters because they burn the mucous membrane, the eyes and the nose.
These particular "burners" are pyrotechnic tear gas cannisters that ignite by using a thermite igniter to start the process.
They shouldn't really be used in a wooden cabin because of their potential for starting a fire.
From what I've learned, they deployed a cold tear gas cannister first to try to convince the suspect to surrender and when that failed, they went to the "burners", which usually convinces the suspect to surrender, however, Dorner had made it crystal clear that he wasn't going to be taken alive.

He CHOSE the course of action taken, he CHOSE not to surrender, he CHOSE to shoot it out with the police, he CHOSE the method of his demise, he CHOSE badly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #259)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 01:31 AM

260. And again, I can find no reference to this "slang" outside this incident. Highly unlikely it'd go...

...unnoticed as slang until now. You can fly your "experience" canard all you like, but the smell of bullshit still hangs heavy in the air over the claim that this is slang. Regardless, the audio recordings of the incident contradicts the official story about giving him chances to surrender from the cabin or how they actually deployed these "burners" whichever type they may have been. The evidence is quite clear - and damning - they used these *specifically* because they'd ignite the cabin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #260)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 01:36 AM

261. Go ahead and belive what you want,

 

but I ask again, what's your experience in this subject?
And you won't find the slang term in things like Wikipedia or otherwise, this is an internal thing.

You have no idea of what you're talking about whereas I have numerous years of what I'm talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #261)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 01:56 AM

263. "This is an internal thing." Ooo, pulling the "secret knowledge" card. Right. You do know slang is

generally cataloged online beyond Wikipedia, right? There are police forums populated by police officers, military forums populated by military personnel, all manner of of news sites tailored to those groups. Google trawls for whatever hits it can on search terms, and "burners teargas" came up with numerous hits from sources generated within the past 24 hours or so, but I still can't find any beyond this incident even after adding "-dorner"

All these years, and not one reference anywhere on the web that I can find beyond this incident connecting "burners" with teargas. I'd be willing to concede the slang claim if there were evidence to back it up, and I've been trying to find just that. I'm not taking the word of some anonymous poster and their claimed experience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to randome (Reply #267)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:17 AM

270. Tenuous at best, reads like the officer confused the two but I'm not going to continue on slang.

The original point about the police deliberately choosing a weapon to ignite the cabin still stands.

Thank you, randome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #270)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:42 AM

271. You were proven wrong and you call it tenuous?

 

Admit it, I was right and you were wrong about the term burner being slang for that type of tear gas.
And you don't know that the Sheriff's Dept. "deliberately" choose a weapon to ignite the cabin, you weren't there.
I contend that they choose the best available weapon at their disposal at the time to end what was a very dangerous situation, Dorner had already made it clear that he wasn't going to be taken alive and he proved it by shooting 2 more cops with one being killed as he entered that cabin.
The bottom line is that Dorner CHOSE how Dorner died.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #271)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:42 PM

285. Yes, I call it tenuous. The quote is oddly phrased and given only one example out of how many years?

You can bitch and moan all you like, I was willing to simply concede the matter of whether or not it was slang as it remains irrelevant to the main point that the police knowingly chose to burn the cabin with a weapon they knew could do just that.

There. Is. Audio. Recordings. Of. Them. Discussing. The. Pre-planned. Deployment. Of. Weapons. Known. To. Induce. Fires. Specifically. To. Burn. The. Cabin. Down. You weren't there either, but people were recording what was said by the police over radio. Pretending they weren't caught on tape saying highly suspect and frankly damning things is like conservatives pretending they didn't say the things they said on recorded television.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:30 PM

221. Does anyone know

if "cold" tear gas puts out the same amount of smoke/gas as the "pyrotechnic-type" tear gas that start fires?

He said deputies initially fired conventional "cold" tear gas into the cabin in Seven Oaks, near Big Bear Lake, then switched to "pyrotechnic-type" rounds" known as "burners."


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/13/dorner-lapd-officer-fugitive-gunbattle/1915961/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Go Vols (Reply #221)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:39 PM

224. No, they are not as effective as the pyrotechnic type tear gas cannister.

 

Usually the cold cannister is deployed first to try to convince a barricaded suspect to surrender and if that fails, the the "burner" is deployed, usually to great effect.
The down side is that they sometime ignite a fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:34 PM

222. a bit more info here:

*snip*

SWAT officers surrounding the cabin were under a "constant barrage of gunfire," one source said. “He put himself in that position. There weren’t a lot of options.”

Hoping to end the standoff, law enforcement authorities first lobbed "traditional" tear gas into the cabin. When that did not work, they opted to use CS gas canisters, which are known in law enforcement parlance as incendiary tear gas. These canisters have significantly more chance of starting a fire. This gas can cause humans to have burning eyes and start to feel as if they are being starved for oxygen. It is often used to drive barricaded individuals out.

*snip*

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/dorner-manhunt-highly-incendiary-hot-gas-used-on-cabin.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:46 PM

228. I would have loved to see the commentary on THIS forum when Waco was 'torched'...indeed.

Just saying...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #228)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:47 PM

230. on THIS forum? Which forum are you from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #230)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:11 AM

257. Back then...I wasn't on a 'forum' and just what are you suggesting Robinlynne? eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:47 PM

231. Of course - Dornan had a Constitutional right to kill more people. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #231)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:29 AM

264. Of course that's not even close to what I said, but you know that which

makes your slimy post all the more contemptible. And that's the best that it deserves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:55 PM

236. In all the coverage, I have yet to hear from anyone in the mental health field.

Was he mentally ill at the time? I'm no psychiatrist, but I would think a check-up was in order at the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #236)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 02:14 PM

274. A cop went to arrest him and take him to a mental health check-up and Dorner killed him.

I'm no psychiatrist either but when you kill the guy coming to take you to a psychiatrist there aren't many options left but limit the number of people you have the opportunity to kill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbdo2007 (Reply #274)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 02:34 PM

275. Thanks for reinforcing my point. Shooting the mentally ill if they pose a threat

isn't what I call civilized living. Where is the empathy for someone not functioning properly. Do people want empathy when they have something go wrong with their mental functioning, such as getting exposed to a harmful drug or to chemicals in the workplace?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #275)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:57 PM

287. He didn't "pose a threat" - he actually killed people. If there was any chance he would kill someone

else he should be stopped ASAP. Anyone who would kill someone, in my opinion is "not functioning properly". Would you want to be the next one sent in to drive this guy to the psych hospital?? It's not like he wasn't give a hundred chances to surrender peacefully.

I'm in the mental health industry, which is why I responded to your post in the first place, and as compassionate and empathetic as the psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, etc. that I work with are to mental health issues, it is a given that if they pose an imminent threat of violence to others they should be stopped, even if it means killing them. It's sad but not nearly as sad as him killing multiple innocent people and STILL trying to kill people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbdo2007 (Reply #287)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:58 PM

305. I oppose killing mental patients.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #305)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:18 AM

306. I oppose mental patients killing innocent people more than I oppose killing mental patients who are

actively killing innocent people and trying to kill more innocent people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbdo2007 (Reply #274)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:26 PM

281. The LAPD almost killed an additional 4 people in their rush murder Dorner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #281)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:58 PM

288. I didn't hear about other people being in the cabin. Link??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbdo2007 (Reply #288)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 05:44 PM

291. I'm talking about the people the LAPD attacked several days ago while looking for Dorner.

In the first instance two women who were delivering newspapers from a truck similar to Dorner's were injured and their truck destroy in a hail of bullets, the police mistook two women for a 6'5" black man, shooting over 60 rounds into their truck. In the second instance a small framed white man and his wife driving a truck like Dorner's was ramed by two police cars and shot at multiple times. In both cases there was no warning, the police made no attempt to identify the occupants as Dorner, no attempt to identify a plate number. Their only intention was to kill who they blindly thought was Dorner. Luckily all four people survived, two with serious injuries and both with their vehicles destroyed.

If that is not a criminal neglect of duty I don't know what is, the police were bent on murdering Dorner to the degree that they didn't care who else they killed doing it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #291)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 09:22 AM

307. I think we all agree that they shouldn't have shot at those people....

we're talking about them burning down the cabin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbdo2007 (Reply #307)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:49 PM

308. That's right we're talking about them burning down the cabin, and their previous action speak to

their intent with total disregard for the law. When you factor in the CNN footage in which police officers are clearly heard yelling to "Torch Him", the evidence is clear that the police intended to Murder Dorner!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:07 PM

242. Dorner wanted to go out this way...

Law Enforcement on the scene, evidently wanted the same thing. That is pretty much what I said in another thread. The fact that both sides wanted the same thing, Dorner dead. Doesn't change the fact that setting fire to the cabin was very likely wrong. Perhaps they had no choice, but I really don't believe that. I think they could have gotten him to turn himself in or at the very least I think they could have gotten him to eventually surrender. OTOH, maybe there was no way to take him alive, but setting fire to the cabin seems over kill especially if he was already dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:14 PM

246. The whole cabin thing was taking a way too long

Now we have all these incidinary device, however you spell that, debates.

Obama should have just ordered a drone attack on him and be done with it. You could pull all the walls down with one shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 01:38 AM

262. On top of all the other problems, the strategy the cops used at that cabin was extremely reckless.

No, the blowtorch teargas canisters didn't make the situation safer for the officers or the neighborhood - they set the fucking house on fire. Gee, a raging fire really improved the safety situation...

Let's set aside the debate over whether that was intentional or not. The result was a fire that destroyed the cabin, so rather than having to deal with Dorner, they now had to deal with Dorner and a blazing inferno, putting officers at risk, as well as firefighters, and possibly the neighbors if the fire spread.

That's just icing on the cake after those two women got shot by the police during the manhunt. To be blunt, the police had completely lost their minds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)


Response to cali (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:05 AM

266. It definitely was wrong ...

... and furthermore, how can we be sure, as sly as he was, that this wasn't a decoy, and that's another charred corpse in the cabin?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:30 AM

269. You are correct. They should have used a bazooka or missile launcher....

or pack of dogs or guided missile or some type of anti-mass device thing like in Angels & Demons.

Burning the cabin to kill this fucker was way too anticlimactic and these other ways would have been much more fun to watch. Either way, I'm glad they killed him before he killed more of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:02 PM

276. Torching Dorner's cabin was not only wrong, it was murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #276)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:03 PM

277. It wasn't "Dorner's cabin," for openers

and no, it wasn't murder, other than to the simpleminded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dreamer Tatum (Reply #277)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:22 PM

280. So now you want to split hairs over the way I identified the cabin, that's petty!

I'm not surprised by your petty complaint about the cabin, you think it helps cover your ignorance regarding the rule of law and due process. I guess we should do away with the judicial branch of government and just allow the police to be judge, jury and executioner!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #280)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:33 PM

283. Due process? You mean because he surrendered?

Hah. Seriously, get a clue - he spent the previous few minutes shooting two cops. He wasn't going to be taken alive.

Due process, my balls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dreamer Tatum (Reply #283)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:41 PM

284. The two cops he shot were several hours prior to the police murdering him.

Try to keep the facts straight, lying and fabricating does not advance your cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #284)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:47 PM

286. I don't really care.

He said he wasn't going to surrender, he shot and killed whomever he liked, so fuck him and I'm glad he's dead.

The end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dreamer Tatum (Reply #286)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 05:34 PM

290. That's right, fuck Dorner, and fuck the LAPD organization or criminals and murderers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #290)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 06:10 PM

293. Not brave enough to condemn him without condemning them, huh?

Sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dreamer Tatum (Reply #293)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 07:45 PM

295. Not brave enough? You mean not brave enough to ignore one murderous organization while condemning

another murderer!

Pretending it's not there doesn't make it go away!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #280)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 04:26 PM

289. Judge, jury and executioner?

 

If that wasn't so dishonest it would be funny!
Here's the thing, Dorner CHOSE to go on a killing spree, Dorner CHOSE to murder 2 cops, 2 civilians, wound 2 more cops, shoot at 2 Fish & Game Wardens, tie up hostages, carjack vehicles, invade a cabin that wasn't his, all the while shooting at the police, refuse to surrender and continue to engage the police with gunfire.
Dorner CHOSE to end it the way it ended, he made it crystal clear that he wasn't going to be take alive and he would kill as many cops as he could before he went down.

In the week that Dorner was on the run, he could have, at any time, contacted a lawyer, the media and trusted friends and surrendered at any police station of his choosing in front of all the witness's, no, instead he continued his murderous spree and the rest is history.

In no way was he, as you so dishonestly put it, murdered by the police.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #289)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 05:48 PM

292. This is a case of murderers murdering a murderer.

At the end of the day one murderer is dead and the rest go free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #292)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 07:57 PM

299. +1

You summed it up perfectly, Drew.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrewFlorida (Reply #292)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:51 PM

302. I'll say it again

 

if this wasn't so offensive, it would be funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #289)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 07:50 PM

297. It wasnt the police bussiness to punish and torture him.

Can you even imagine how excruciating is being burn alive?? Two wrongs don't make a right. And police had no bussiness being the judge and the executioner. I begin to think some of you really can't feel human empathy. Or have a sense of legal boundaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #297)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:47 PM

301. Crap.

 

There were several reports of a single gunshot as the fire lit up. I'll bet that as the fire started, that fucking coward offed himself.

Can you imagine how excruciating it is to get shot by a mad man? Or how excruciating it is to be severely wounded by a mad man?
Are you denying that Dorner wasn't going to surrender? Are you denying that Dorner CHOSE the course of action he took?
My sense of empathy is towards the victims of this murdering monster, not him. I hope there's a special place in hell for monsters like him.

You want to talk about legal boundaries? How about the legal boundaries he crossed time and time again?

I can't believe that someone would actually have any empathy for this murdering monster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #301)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:24 PM

303. How do you know he offed himself??

You don't! As a matter if fact, while they were torching the cabin, the law enforcement weren't even sure if the person inside was Dorner it not.

How would you feel if it was you the subject of police abuse and injustice? Afterall you don't have to be a criminal aparently , to get 46 rounds shot at you while minding your bussiness. You should think twice before siding with abusive and corrupt practices, which have nothing to do with what our legal system stands for.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #303)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:48 PM

304. No, I don't know for sure that he offed himself,

 

but there were reports of a single gunshot as the fire flared up, which usually indicates that the suspect has committed suicide.
The police were confident that Dorner was inside as he killed a deputy and wounded another as he was entering the cabin in question.

And WTF does LAPD shooting innocent people have to do with Dorner being a murdering monster?
Just where did I side with abusive and corrupt practices?

Your clear bias of LE is clouding your judgement, Dorner got exactly what he deserved and I won't shed any tears for that monster, the country and world are a better place without him.

I think your empathy is a little misplaced, it should be for the victims of this waste of a human.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #304)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:57 PM

309. You conveniently ignore the other murderous party to these events, the police!

You make it sound as if a person expecting the police not to murder people is the same as having empathy for Dorner. That's because you are willing to overlook the unlawful actions of the police, blaming those unlawful action on Dorner. Dorner was a murderer, and the police also are murderers.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that two wrongs make a right, that vigilantism is right because the person it was used against was wrong, vigilantism is wrong it is against the law the same way that Dorner's actions were against the law!
Stop making excuses for one murderer because of another murderer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread