jlrhiner
US Veteran
^^^^Damn! Another one of them dumb old country boys!! ^^^^
Hummmm..."Live" Audio of how it went down?
- Thread starter rags
- Start date
MaximumLawman
Member
First, I couldn't care less what happened to this guy as far as HOW he was captured or killed, (my remark about the "no-knock warrant" was facetious) but as a point of fact or trivia.....The Bill of Rights was meant to protect the rights of bad guys and suspected bad guys, not good guys. He didn't "give up" any rights be being in a gunfight with the police. As far as the police action, they fired some tear gas rounds in there when the guy refused to come out. The kinds that explode and send powder everywhere aren't as effective as the kinds that burn and actually produce gas. The fire was incidental. He should have surrendered. It's not the cops' fault that the tear gas rounds that are most effective at filling a structure with gas are also more likely to start a fire.
Also TN v Garner was a civil case, not a criminal case. It merely said that the police can be held CIVILLY liable for the use of deadly force in stopping a non-violent fleeing felon. After the Garner decision, most states passed criminal laws that made it a CRIME to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon. Several states did not. For example, TN V. Garner notwithstanding, you can not be criminally charged in those states for shooting a non-violent fleeing felon to stop his escape. Even if he is no threat to you.
Also TN v Garner was a civil case, not a criminal case. It merely said that the police can be held CIVILLY liable for the use of deadly force in stopping a non-violent fleeing felon. After the Garner decision, most states passed criminal laws that made it a CRIME to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon. Several states did not. For example, TN V. Garner notwithstanding, you can not be criminally charged in those states for shooting a non-violent fleeing felon to stop his escape. Even if he is no threat to you.
Last edited:
OP
Just curious. Did you listen to the audio?
MaximumLawman
Member
Yep. Did the guy who made the call to use gas say "We're using this type of round with the intent to start a fire"? Or did you just hear some other pissed off cops talking about "fire". Sort of like when you shoot someone center of mass. The intent of shooting them in the middle of their chest isn't to kill them, it's to stop them from doing what they were doing. The fact that most people who are shot twice in the middle of he chest die is incidental. Same concept.
OP
No he did not. I believe his words were... "We're going to go ahead with the plan. With the......with the burn." " The one that uhhh... The one that we talked about"
My only comment about the fire, etc.
The LAPD said, "We did not intend to burn the place down."
I hate lies and cover-ups............
If they made the decision to burn the cabin; so be it. But don't go out and tell the public something else. Just do your job!
NOW, LAPD, get the cabin rebuilt within the month!!!
The LAPD said, "We did not intend to burn the place down."
I hate lies and cover-ups............
If they made the decision to burn the cabin; so be it. But don't go out and tell the public something else. Just do your job!
NOW, LAPD, get the cabin rebuilt within the month!!!
MaximumLawman
Member
"Burners" is a term used to describe the type of gas round that burns to produce gas as opposed to the kind that "pops" and sends a powdered agent into the air. It doesn't mean a "burning" round used like a flaming arrow, although, as I said, they will, incidental to producing gas, also produce fire. Same concept with regard to intent in shooting to stop a violent aggressor or fleeing felon. Yep, they may die, but the intent was not to kill them. The death is incidental to the intent and means of stopping them, as was the burning down of the cabin was incidental to the intent of filling the structure with gas to flush the guy out. He chose to most likely shoot himself rather than be flushed....
As far as the guy who supposedly said "burn", was that the incident commander or someone 3 or 4 or more people down the line? Words and phrases can become changed as they are re-told.
Last edited:
OP
Or not...
One indisputable fact is that he ain't beathing in and out anymore. Prayers for the families of his victims.
I don't know if LAPD said that. LAPD is a long way from Big Bear but whoever said it was just plain lying and any talk about intent is just window-dressing. They knew exactly what would happen. (And I don't blame them - except for the lying.)
Somebody throw a rubber chicken at him!
rburg
Member
Some points here. Above someone talked about a fleeing felon. The guy wasn't fleeing because they'd already knocked in the cabin walls. Hard to flee when you don't have doors or things to run through.
Then the idea of him being a domestic terrorist. I'd really like to know who does that designation. Just your police chief? Did a court with due process put that label on him? I really wonder how much legal weight the tag holds. If he was indeed a "terrorist", within the meaning of the law, then its so sad too bad for the cabin owner. It could be your cabin or mine, but all of our insurance policies contain exclusions for that kind of thing. It would seem she's going to absorb the loss. Everyone under the sun will be pointing at the other guy, with no one wanting to accept the responsibility for their actions. If indeed the local sheriff was in charge, and it was my cabin, they'd all be served with the lawsuit.
And I feel pretty sure the insurance company would want to duck liability if they can. So you sue everyone in sight and some that aren't visible. Surely every officer on the scene and especially the ones with the gas grenades. If it had been a plan they'd discussed, everyone privy to the discussion would be sued.
Here we have a seemingly innocent cabin owner who has been the victim of a major loss. I'd think all of LAPD would be cheering them on to burn the guy. I wonder if they'll be rushing in to pay for the damages or hiding behind their mothers skirts to avoid it. From a PR standpoint, they'd be well advised to settle quietly with the landowner.
Then the idea of him being a domestic terrorist. I'd really like to know who does that designation. Just your police chief? Did a court with due process put that label on him? I really wonder how much legal weight the tag holds. If he was indeed a "terrorist", within the meaning of the law, then its so sad too bad for the cabin owner. It could be your cabin or mine, but all of our insurance policies contain exclusions for that kind of thing. It would seem she's going to absorb the loss. Everyone under the sun will be pointing at the other guy, with no one wanting to accept the responsibility for their actions. If indeed the local sheriff was in charge, and it was my cabin, they'd all be served with the lawsuit.
And I feel pretty sure the insurance company would want to duck liability if they can. So you sue everyone in sight and some that aren't visible. Surely every officer on the scene and especially the ones with the gas grenades. If it had been a plan they'd discussed, everyone privy to the discussion would be sued.
Here we have a seemingly innocent cabin owner who has been the victim of a major loss. I'd think all of LAPD would be cheering them on to burn the guy. I wonder if they'll be rushing in to pay for the damages or hiding behind their mothers skirts to avoid it. From a PR standpoint, they'd be well advised to settle quietly with the landowner.
OLDFED
Member
Thank heaven they didn't use an armed drone. I wouldn't want to have to listen to the lefties who would start to bad-mouth those "Ugly, evil assault drones." A whole new "anti" movement would have been born.
M&P Mike
Member
Self-fulfilling prophecy !
MaximumLawman
Member
Do you need someone to tell you that a guy who took a bag of money out of a bank by force or threat of force is a "bank robber"?
Pretty standard definition from the FBI:
And who cares about the cabin? They owners will be made whole by the agency who burned the place down. Big deal. It's always the same guys who seem to seize on that part of the story. Cop shoots someone: "Who's going to get the blood stain out of the carpet! They should have used a Taser!"
Only a cop-basher would suspect there would be any problem with "PR" for burning the place down in this situation either incidentally or with specific intent. I WISH the cops would burn my vacation house down as long as I wasn't in it at the time!
Last edited:
If you read my post again, pay attention to this part:
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 part that reads "apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure....." is critical.
The fact that they ruled an apprehension by the use of deadly force IS a seizure, requires the use of deadly force comply with the guidelines set forth in "Garner v Tennessee", the so called fleeing felon law. When the Garner decision came down in 1985, most agencies had to re-write their deadly force policies, regardless if the felon is fleeing or not.
I don't think considering his actions to have "political or social objectives" is really valid, so I guess I side with Dick. He wasn't any sort of terrorist, as far as I can see. He was just a loser who didn't want to live any more and let his hatred of others and his desire for what he thought of as revenge guide his actions during his last days. Regrettable that any human being sinks to that depth.
It was imperative that the matter be resolved without further loss of innocent life. The chosen method worked out OK, and I agree that the property owner will doubtless be properly compensated. Too much media attention to weasel out of this one.
It was imperative that the matter be resolved without further loss of innocent life. The chosen method worked out OK, and I agree that the property owner will doubtless be properly compensated. Too much media attention to weasel out of this one.
Labeling him as a domestic terrorist is a moot point, albeit he certainly fits the description. It doesn't change the requirement that the rules of deadly force in this situation meet the guidelines of the agencie's policies, and supreme court rulings.
Last edited:
Delos
Member
The scuba tank factor
I figured that he still had the scuba tanks -- then flooded the basement -- set the place on fire and went under water.
I was waiting for him to come up while firemen putting out the fire and kill more.
When I saw that the police were smart enough to stay away and let it smolder all night, I was happy.
I have seen far too many times where the suits in the distant front office are calling the shots, causing unnecessary lives to be lost. This was done right.
He could have walked out with his hands up at any time, but chose not to.
I figured that he still had the scuba tanks -- then flooded the basement -- set the place on fire and went under water.
I was waiting for him to come up while firemen putting out the fire and kill more.
When I saw that the police were smart enough to stay away and let it smolder all night, I was happy.
I have seen far too many times where the suits in the distant front office are calling the shots, causing unnecessary lives to be lost. This was done right.
He could have walked out with his hands up at any time, but chose not to.
