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

[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.

 

[jlrhiner]

^^^^Damn! Another one of them dumb old country boys!! ^^^^

 

[MaximumLawman]

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.

 

[rags]

The fire was incidental.

Just curious. Did you listen to the audio?

 

[MaximumLawman]

Just curious. Did you listen to the audio?

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.

 

[rags]

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.

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"

 

[4Js]

"We're going to go ahead with the plan. With the......with the burner(s)."

Can't say for sure. He said 'burner' or 'burners'

 

[trakskip]

Rekin i broke the 1st trying to support the 2nd.

Post removed?

 

[4Js]

Rekin i broke the 1st trying to support the 2nd.

Post removed?

Dunno,

I was going to try to address some of the concerns you had, then it was gone.

 

[Road Rat]

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!!!

 

[MaximumLawman]

[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"

"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.

 

[rags]

"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.

Or not...

One indisputable fact is that he ain't beathing in and out anymore. Prayers for the families of his victims.

 

[M29since14]

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............

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.)

So, are all their firearms now officially BBQ guns??

Somebody throw a rubber chicken at him!

 

[rburg]

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.

 

[OLDFED]

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]

Self-fulfilling prophecy !

 

[MaximumLawman]

Then the idea of him being a domestic terrorist. I'd really like to know who does that designation.

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:

Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.

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!"

From a PR standpoint, they'd be well advised to settle quietly with the landowner.

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!

 

[4Js]

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.

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.

 

[M29since14]

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.

 

[4Js]

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.

 

[Delos]

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.