Hummmm..."Live" Audio of how it went down?

[keith44spl]

If someone wants to play dirty, the rules go out the window.

Right thar ya go! ^^^

I've worked stand-offs.....They ain't no fun.
Especially when ya have to make entry to root some sumbitch out!

So in this particular incident....

This outlaw choose his path....And he choose poorly.


.

 

[jaykellogg]

I just heard that his body has been identified via. dental records. Nothing "official" yet on the cause of death. I am sure it will comeback as a suicude.

 

[Number1gun]

I see lawyers in the future...

 

[1morethan8]

When they said he was in the cabin, I told the wife if they find out he has no hostages.. they're going to have a BBQ!

 

[feralmerril]

It was done the way it should have been. I hope the cabin owners are well compisated insurance or no insurance. They probley will be. If not, thats when I will loudly join whoever protests.

 

[A10]

Firstly, he got what he deserved. Secondly, if the officers could have taken him alive they would have. They know this is a nation of laws and LEOs are not judge, jury, and executioner. Thirdly, it is better to end the standoff quickly than to allow it to go on, giving him a voice to the media and allowing those dirtbag supporters of him to congregate (though some friendly fire in their direction would not have bothered me in the least).

So, are all their firearms now officially BBQ guns?? I know, I know, I'm a sick *******.............

 

[venomballistics]

I just want to know if they had one of those "no knock warrants" we're always hearing about. If so, I think they should instead have knocked or waited for him to come out to go to the grocery store or something and then arrested him peacefully or just shut the water off and waited until he got thirsty.

Over the years they've cooked up many whiz bang gadgets to assist in these sorts of deals.
LEO involvement spanned the Sheriff, State, LAPD, and FBI.
I'd think that between them, Assets would be mind boggling.
yet .. lets just torch the joint rather than fly in the elements of a more elegant solution ....
heck, give me a muffler, a drill, a gas grill, flex pipe, a leaf blower and a jug of cod liver oil and i'll flush you out of anywhere while you show everyone what you ate in the past few days.

Authorities had specifically labeled him a "domestic terrorist." A drone strike would have been way cool to watch.

A quick termination of these situations sends a positive message as far as I'm concerned.

yeah ... that would have been some choice footage.
But the second the Maverick leaves the rail, this country changes forever

 

[carpriver]

I think when you start killing people and put the lives of others at risk in a stand off you give up your rights.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Now I'm curious. What 'rights' does a domestic terrorist have while in a gunfight with the police?

 

[venomballistics]

Now I'm curious. What 'rights' does a domestic terrorist have while in a gunfight with the police?

the same as we do when the government no longer has use for gun owners and labels us the same

 

[yeti]

Ages old and siege tested. Burning him out seemed like a decent plan to me.

I just hope the property owner is not given the stall & runaround. I am certain they are upset enough about the loss of everything in the cabin! The property owners insurance should pay and get reimbursed directly from the feds and/or state.

 

[Fishslayer]

Besides the obvious dangers, taking him alive would have been very inconvenient.

Now they can wrap up the "internal investigation" & find no basis for any of his allegations. They can determine that mag dumps into unidentified targets on city streets are "a training issue" and put their Rambos back on the street with their tactical toys.

Back to business as usual. Nothing to see here. Move along...

 

[jlrhiner]

I don't believe the Feds were involved at the end, as he never left the state. (their warrants were for flight to avoid prosecution). I think it was an all Sheriff Dept. Show.

Did they handle it wrong? I don't think so. Of course, they could have waited, but there would have been no guarantee it would have come out different. Dorner made a choice, and died by it.

 

[Springfeildkid585]

Now I'm curious. What 'rights' does a domestic terrorist have while in a gunfight with the police?

The same rights EVERYONE has while in a gunfight with the police. He had the right to lay down arms and surrender, meet with an attorney, remain silent, have a fair and speedy trial, he chose to give up those rights. The police present had some rights too, not the least of which being the right to defend their lives and the lives of the public. I'm shocked by the lack of concern so many on this forum have at the idea of officers setting fire to an occupied structure. Once we start allowing special exceptions to the constitution for terrorists, we've opened pandora's box. Remember, the battles of Lexington&Concord were fought between the British Army and the Colonial "terrorists". Dorner was scum, he deserves more than those officers physically could have done to him, but we have laws and procedure for a reason.

 

[Fishslayer]

. I'm shocked by the lack of concern so many on this forum have at the idea of officers setting fire to an occupied structure.

At least they had the right address this time...

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

The same rights EVERYONE has while in a gunfight with the police. He had the right to lay down arms and surrender, meet with an attorney, remain silent, have a fair and speedy trial, he chose to give up those rights. The police present had some rights too, not the least of which being the right to defend their lives and the lives of the public. I'm shocked by the lack of concern so many on this forum have at the idea of officers setting fire to an occupied structure. Once we start allowing special exceptions to the constitution for terrorists, we've opened pandora's box. Remember, the battles of Lexington&Concord were fought between the British Army and the Colonial "terrorists". Dorner was scum, he deserves more than those officers physically could have done to him, but we have laws and procedure for a reason.

All those things you have described are not while in a gun fight. You're describing while surrendering or after. There is no indication that Dorner had or was surrendering.

I'm not shocked that the police set fire to the structure, nor am I aware of any right to cover from police gunfire and shelter during a gunfight with police. Why would we want or expect the police to accommodate Dorner with cover and shelter at their own risk in this type of situation?

I don't see where any Constitutional rights were denied this guy, whether he was designated a domestic terrorist or not.

 

[BJoe]

The same rights EVERYONE has while in a gunfight with the police. He had the right to lay down arms and surrender, meet with an attorney, remain silent, have a fair and speedy trial, he chose to give up those rights. The police present had some rights too, not the least of which being the right to defend their lives and the lives of the public. I'm shocked by the lack of concern so many on this forum have at the idea of officers setting fire to an occupied structure. Once we start allowing special exceptions to the constitution for terrorists, we've opened pandora's box. Remember, the battles of Lexington&Concord were fought between the British Army and the Colonial "terrorists". Dorner was scum, he deserves more than those officers physically could have done to him, but we have laws and procedure for a reason.

"RIGHTS IN A GUN FIGHT???????" That is probably the first time someone has used those words together............and was SERIOUS.
We are all entitled to our opinion but if you take a shot at me, or pull a gun on me, your rights are history.

 

[rags]

I don't believe the Feds were involved at the end, as he never left the state. (their warrants were for flight to avoid prosecution). I think it was an all Sheriff Dept. Show.

Did they handle it wrong? I don't think so. Of course, they could have waited, but there would have been no guarantee it would have come out different. Dorner made a choice, and died by it.

That day, he took one more life and wounded another. They simply said, "We're done here."

 

[Springfeildkid585]

All those things you have described are not while in a gun fight. You're describing while surrendering or after. There is no indication that Dorner had or was surrendering.

I'm not shocked that the police set fire to the structure, nor am I aware of any right to cover from police gunfire and shelter during a gunfight with police. Why would we want or expect the police to accommodate Dorner with cover and shelter at their own risk in this type of situation?

I don't see where any Constitutional rights were denied this guy, whether he was designated a domestic terrorist or not.

As I said, he gave up those rights by continuing the gunfight. He had the choice to lay down his gun and invoke his rights by surrendering. He did not. He died. I'm fine with that.
If there is a written code on when police are warranted to set fire to an occupied structure, I am unaware of it. If it was part of standard procedure, then it could be challenged in the Supreme Court (I'd argue 8th Amendment) and it could be decided if we as a society find "smoking out" as acceptable procedure. The officers involved are liable for the damages to the house, not the department, if it is not standard procedure.

 

[4Js]

As I said, he gave up those rights by continuing the gunfight. He had the choice to lay down his gun and invoke his rights by surrendering. He did not. He died. I'm fine with that.
If there is a written code on when police are warranted to set fire to an occupied structure, I am unaware of it. If it was part of standard procedure, then it could be challenged in the Supreme Court (I'd argue 8th Amendment) and it could be decided if we as a society find "smoking out" as acceptable procedure. The officers involved are liable for the damages to the house, not the department, if it is not standard procedure.

I admire your passion, but you are looking at the wrong Article. I believe this is an Article Four incident.

Graham v Connor: " ....Eighth Amendment standard applies only after the State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions. Pp. 490 U. S. 397-399."

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, "....there can be no question that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment."

The Supreme Court outlined the use of deadly force by police, to apprehend a felon in Garner vs Tennessee. "....it (the use of deadly force by police to apprehend a fleeing suspect) is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. 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. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster."

Nowhere in the decision did the Court define what force used by the police is 'deadly'.

And we still do not know if it was the fire that killed Dorner.