HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Now that the smoke has cl...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:11 PM

Now that the smoke has cleared, can anyone say why they didn't simply sit and wait?

Dorner was completely surrounded. There was simply no way out for him. True enough, some civilians might have been inconvenienced. But no one needed to die. The spectacle we all witnessed didn't need to occur. Apart from those possibly inconvenienced civilians, there was no need to lob tear gas or flash bangs or any other heavy duty bang-bang shit, to taunt, to beg or cajole.

Why do the cops all too often have this inclination to attack. They are peace keepers. They could have peacefully just waited. No pizza deliveries. Turn off the electric, maybe. Turn off the gas and phone, and maybe even the water.

This is not a defense of Dorner. His suicide saved us a lot of money and I am glad he chose that way out. But it seems to me an alternate ending was also possible if the response had been different.

32 replies, 1868 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 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply Now that the smoke has cleared, can anyone say why they didn't simply sit and wait? (Original post)
Stinky The Clown Feb 2013 OP
sharp_stick Feb 2013 #1
hack89 Feb 2013 #2
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #4
hack89 Feb 2013 #5
loli phabay Feb 2013 #12
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #7
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #15
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #18
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #22
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #24
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #27
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #28
brooklynite Feb 2013 #3
kenny blankenship Feb 2013 #11
brooklynite Feb 2013 #31
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #17
HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #25
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #6
Brother Buzz Feb 2013 #8
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #9
Brother Buzz Feb 2013 #16
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #10
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #13
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #19
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #20
loli phabay Feb 2013 #29
Dreamer Tatum Feb 2013 #14
zappaman Feb 2013 #26
MindPilot Feb 2013 #21
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #23
randome Feb 2013 #30
Zoeisright Feb 2013 #32

Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:30 PM

1. My thoughts are

that he showed himself willing to kill at any time. If for some reason he was able to escape the cabin the backlash would have been astounding.

Add to that the fact that if anyone showed themselves to him during the wait he wouldn't have hesitated to use his sound suppressed rifle to take them out as well.

He had multiple opportunities to surrender, he continued to trade fire with the cops when he was holed up in the cabin. They gassed him and instead of walking out he shot himself in the head.

In a show of pure speculation, I don't think he was ever coming out of that cabin alive. He knew he was going to die either by shooting himself or suicide by cop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:54 PM

2. What if he decided to end it by charging the cops?

and perhaps killing one or two?

Don't give violent people the initiative such that you have to react to what they do. The result made be unintended and tragic. Take the initiative and make him react to your actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:36 PM

4. The half dozen snipers stationed around the house would have killed him.

 

He might have got off one or two wild shots before they dropped him. The chances of his killing any of the cops is negligible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:38 PM

5. But why risk it? Take the initiative and end it on your terms.

it simply reduces the chances of things going wrong.

The well being of Dorner should have been the least consideration - he had plenty of chances to surrender previously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:46 PM

12. this. you want to be acting not reacting

 

You cant risk the smallest chance of him escaping or you losing the initiative. Containing him once it got dark becomes more difficult and puts the surrounding deputies at risk. One maxim of barricade situations is you keep the ground you have and try to dictate the assault on your terms. The misunderstanding on the options you have available when dealing with a heavily armed barricaded killer are what we see from posters. As is the misunderstanding as to what a burner is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:43 PM

7. Negligible? Tell that to Jeremiah Mackay's familiy. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:48 PM

15. Completely irrelevant comparison. Sorry to read that you are still unable to see the danger of

 

your position on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:50 PM

18. Sorry to see you believe police are required to run away from armed gunmen

rather than trying to disarm them.

One of us has a sane position on this, the other agrees with the militia crowd.

The 4th Amendment CLEARLY authorized this action.

This is ROUTINE. Armed gunmen who barricade themselves don't get to hold the police and community hostage. They face the use of reasonable force against them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:55 PM

22. Are you still claiming to be a criminal defense attorney? You tried this crap on that other thread

 

as well, and amazingly enough, when I provided you with actual real life case law, you stopped responding.

I know that TV life is so much easier to understand, so please return to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:56 PM

24. I'm not a criminal defense attorney.

But go ahead and cite the case law for your "run away" obligation for the police.

SCOTUS case law requires a three part test.

"The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application," Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 441 U. S. 559 (1979), however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. at 471 U. S. 8-9 (the question is "whether the totality of the circumstances justifie a particular sort of. . . seizure").


Graham v Connor

In this case, all three factors point towards the cops having legal authority to do what they did, at a bare minimum. They could have flashbanged and shot him too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 03:01 PM

27. But you claimed that anybody familiar with case law would take your position,

 

until it was provided, that is.

We have agreed on many other issues, but I see no reason to rewrite what has already been written.

We are just going to have to chalk this one up to irreconcilable differences. You support vigilantism in this type of case, I feel it has a consistently eroding effect on society at large, as well as encouraging escalation of criminal behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #27)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 03:06 PM

28. No, I support police following 4th Amendment standards.

4th amendment case law clearly permits the use of tear gas in this case. It's not vigiliantism for the police to end an armed standoff using means clearly permitted under the constitution.

Feel free to quote case law otherwise.

Edited to add:

Ginter v. Stallcup:

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/869/869.F2d.384.88-1130.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:57 PM

3. Primarily, nobody knew if he had a hostage...

As much as people don't seem to like LAPD, I suspect it's a fairly standard "not going to take the risk" assumption that any Police Dept chasing a murder suspect would make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:45 PM

11. So you think the police set fire to the cabin, not knowing if there was a hostage???

that's even worse. If they didn't know if he had a hostage in the cabin, then they also didn't know he hadn't tied that hostage(s) up. Any hostages burn to a crisp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenny blankenship (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:39 PM

31. I don't think they set fire to it...

I think it caught fight when they were shooting tear gas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:49 PM

17. They had no reason to suspect he had a hostage.

They did have reason to suspect his sniper rifle might kill them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:56 PM

25. I don't understand...how would torching the house after crashing into it with a vehicle

to open walls for access of the incendiary devices make things safer for a hostage?

I'm not saying it couldn't, but I just don't see how that argument works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:41 PM

6. He had a sniper rifle that could shoot helicopters down from 1 kilometer.

He was shooting at anything that moved (good luck getting floodlights to work in such an instance).

The officers on the scene were still in grave danger, as they would be until he was subdued.

Night was approaching. He may have had nightvision goggles on him. He probably had a smart phone.

He had body armor, including a helmet.

This is how armed standoffs with barricaded fugitives end. They took the necessary steps to minimize further risk to themselves and the general public.

But, you are correct. The spectacle did not need to occur. And the one person to blame for it occurring is Christopher Jordan Dorner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:43 PM

8. Obama ordered the situation resolved BEFORE the State of the Union speech

Doncha know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:44 PM

9. Add that sarcasm tag, pronto! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:49 PM

16. IT'S TWOO! IT'S TWOO!

I read it on one of the Internets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:44 PM

10. Because our police forces are no longer peace keepers. They are paramilitary enforcers. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:46 PM

13. You think peacekeeping means pacifism?

Sorry you don't like the police being able to use necessary force to disarm violent fugitives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:51 PM

19. Keep on trying to mischaracterize my position, it's so much fun to watch your contortion act. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:52 PM

20. You're crying because the police used tear gas on a guy with body armor

and a .50 caliber rifle and tons of ammunition.

That's crazy talk.

Newsflash: they're called law ENFORCEMENT.

They're not their to meditate with the guy and smoke a peace pipe. They're there to make sure he doesn't kill anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 03:14 PM

29. your last line is the most important line about this

 

Using force to stop him was the only option available as we see by his actions, does anyone believe he would have surrendered after having numerous chances. Reality is he would have killed everyone there if it meant he could escape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:46 PM

14. "Yes, ma'am, there is a deranged psychotic murdering trained killer on your street."

"No, we don't know when he'll surrender. We don't know anything, really. Could be days...could be weeks. Really depends. Well, yes, I suppose he could take potshots and endanger anyone in the effective range of whatever unknown weapon he may have. We just don't know. It would be a violation of his rights to just barge in there, you see. No, you don't have any right to live in peace and safety. You lost those rights as soon as he decided to hole up there. It's HIS world now. He calls the shots. Yes, I realize that every goddamned weirdo is gathering around to watch the spectacle. Yes, it's true that the police are spending so much time babysitting Dorner that they can't tend to much else. The bottom line, ma'am, is that we have to respect Mr. Dorner's right to kill as many people as he sees fit and hole up in someone else's property for as long as he likes. What do you want us to do, try to put an end to this?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dreamer Tatum (Reply #14)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:59 PM

26. +1000 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:53 PM

21. "this is not a defense of Dorner..."

It has become a sad state of affairs when there are so many cops-can-do-no-wrong authoritarians on DU, that you have to preface any comment criticizing the police with a disclaimer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindPilot (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:55 PM

23. Except that in the history of DU, there's never been any protest

over a well armed murderer with body armor getting tear gassed by police.

Never before have people determined that cops should sit around and wait for him to surrender, at a sacrifice of their own and the public's safety.

The "they were obligated to wait him out" is a fringe position completely at odds with the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindPilot (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 03:19 PM

30. You count up the 'cops can do no wrong' crowd, will you?

I'd be interested in the numbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:45 PM

32. That's not reality.

Police have the authority to respond to violence WITH violence of an equal or greater magnitude. What is so hard to understand about that?

Pizza deliveries? Are you fucking kidding me?? He was killing people, sparky - not smoking pot and getting the munchies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread