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

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.
Click to expand...


He was every bit the domestic terrorist as Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph or Ted Kaczynski.
 
I guess I'm just not sure I see the reason they needed to burn the place down. The moment they had him surrounded and trapped, it was over. The exigent circumstances disappeared and it turned into a pretty simple surround and wait. All they had to do was secure the cordon and call in the negotiators. Worst case is they wait a few days to talk him out or perhaps he commits suicide anyway. He certainly was not longer a threat as he'd be shot if he appeared in a window or door. He wasn't going anywhere and the cops had nothing but time to wait. I'm not arguing what the cops did was wrong, just that they really had no reason to do it and that, in my opinion, their job is to arrest their suspect first and foremost if there is any possible way to do it.
 
[QUOTE=A10 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.

Try telling that to the occupants of the misidentified vehicles that got shot up. Those particular officers were playing "judge, jury and executioner".

1) did he ultimately get what he deserved? Absolutely.
2) will a reward ever be given for the tip by the person who escaped? Not a chance. They knew when they offered the reward for a tip leading to "arrest and conviction", he wouldn't be taken alive, and therefore could weasel out of paying.
3) am I sick of blatant lies and cover ups by all branches of "government" from the highest office, to the city councils, to whatever the lowest office or position of "power" funded by tax dollars may be? ABSOLUTELY.
 
Why do the elected officials and law enforcement continually feel it is necessary to lie to the public? It seems they have lost their faith in us, and we in turn, have lost it in them.
 
The key to this discussion is found in Graham vs. Conner (1989). Objectively Reasonable is the key phrase.

The United States Supreme Court stated:

The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.

So would a another police officer in the same situation find these actions reasonable? Yes they would.

There are several cases in recent history where a barricaded suspect died inside a structure which caught fire after gas was introduced.

here are a few

Stevenson Ranch-

Deputy Sheriff Hagop Jake Kuredjian, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, California

Lake Los Angeles-

Deputy Stephen Douglas Sorensen, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, California

1974 SLA Shootout -

The Shootout on East 54th Street : Violence: Twenty years ago, the LAPD and the Symbionese Liberation Army exchanged fire at a home in South-Central. - Los Angeles Times

None of these suspects had to die inside the burning building- they made a conscious decision to either commit suicide or to stay inside a burning building.

Had they walked out of the structure with their empty hands up and surrendered, they would have been taken into custody with out harm.
 
CALIF GIRL said:
The key to this discussion is found in Graham vs. Conner (1989). Objectively Reasonable is the key phrase.


None of these suspects had to die inside the burning building- they made a conscious decision to either commit suicide or to stay inside a burning building.

Had they walked out of the structure with their empty hands up and surrendered, they would have been taken into custody with out harm.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure Dorner could have just walked out of the building with his hands up as you claim. They pretty much made it crystal clear they had no intention of trying to apprehend him when they lit up the news carriers and the surfer guy a few days earlier. Their intent was to execute him on sight.

There was simply no pressing reason for setting the fire when they had him trapped and could simply secure the perimeter and call in a negotiator. If that didn't pan out in a few days, then sure, end the siege however needed. At least, that would demonstrate that they tried to do things the right way.
 
bitstream said:
I'm not sure Dorner could have just walked out of the building with his hands up as you claim. They pretty much made it crystal clear they had no intention of trying to apprehend him when they lit up the news carriers and the surfer guy a few days earlier. Their intent was to execute him on sight.
Click to expand...

These two incidents were with LAPD . This one was with San Bernadino County.

bitstream said:
There was simply no pressing reason for setting the fire when they had him trapped and could simply secure the perimeter and call in a negotiator. If that didn't pan out in a few days, then sure, end the siege however needed. At least, that would demonstrate that they tried to do things the right way.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think they did things the right way. He knew what tactics would be used. His decision not to leave the structure led to his death.
 
More mass killer laws and procedures needed?

I don't see any problem. Do we really need a law that covers "mass killer refuses to surrender" or maybe "Mass killer waiting for the sun to go down so he can make a run for it, steal another car and kill more people" instruction book.

When you have clusters of houses - police cannot shoot in the direction of a neighboring house. The Mass Killer Maniac can shoot in any direction, or run in any direction.

Hello, the sun was going down. A little more urgency here. Shoot lots of really potent tear gas and empty the biggest machine guns you have.

If the mass killer's body did not have splinters in it whoever is in charge needs some demerit points put in his file for not using big enough bullets.
 
While "I" personaly may have agreement to his original outrage, I cannot but agree that it ended as it should have.
he could never, in a life time, extracted the revenge and reconning that he felt was deserved.
Police did it the way they should have to expedite the curing of this situation without further harm happening.
Feel for the homeowner---but it wasn't his life taken and he should have some amount of happy ending feeling about that.
Blessings
 
If anyone thinks this man was going to walk out and surrender you are sadly mistaken. He was a cop. He knew what he did and the punishment he would receive.

IN MY OPINION, this man gave up ALL his rights the first time he crossed the line and pulled the trigger. He gave up those rights when he violated the rights of those he killed and injured and the families who's lives have been forever changed.

And for those who think that he should been allowed the chance to surrender are not being honest and realistic in any way. EVERYBODY knew he had oxygen tanks! And I'm sure they could have found a few brave officers to knock or breach the door but I don't think they would have found one stupid enough!

So what are your options? Some of you quote legal examples and show concern for his rights. WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE? Cops don't WAIT for a killer unless there is a hostage present. They pursue or attempt to persuade the killer to give up. Or drive a SWAT truck through the front door ay which point he would have been killed anyway by return fire. And even then the bleeding would have screamed.

If it would have been your family member that was killed by this man, you would have been first in line to authorize an Abams tank be used to level the place.

A man is man when he can act responsibly and take responsibility for those actions. If a man is no longer a man because he chooses the ways of the devil, he no longer deserves due process but simply to die like an animal.

The punishment should fit the crime. And if I had been asked if I set fire to the cabin, I would have said DAMN RIGHT I DID!
 
015146.JPG


Our house in the north Georgia mountains. If somebody burned it down, I would be quite upset. Various agencies and people involved would pay. That is arson, plain and simple. Burning a structure down to force someone out of it sounds like murder to me. As law abiding citizens we are all supposed to be above that, regardless of the circumstances, civilian or sworn. I agree the suspect needed to be stopped, but this was the wrong way to do it. I have been surprised at what some folks have written in this thread.
 
ColbyBruce said:
015146.JPG


Our house in the north Georgia mountains. If somebody burned it down, I would be quite upset. Various agencies and people involved would pay. That is arson, plain and simple. Burning a structure down to force someone out of it sounds like murder to me. As law abiding citizens we are all supposed to be above that, regardless of the circumstances, civilian or sworn. I agree the suspect needed to be stopped, but this was the wrong way to do it. I have been surprised at what some folks have written in this thread.
Click to expand...

Funny how people compare personal property with lives of the very cops that are out there everyday doing their best to protect us. :rolleyes:

While this guy was loose everybody and their brother wanted this guy stopped. Not caught. STOPPED!! Well he got stopped and people still aren't happy. :rolleyes:
 
When will the media give the rest of the story?

Dorner's Las Vegas house is really nice. Is he behind in mortgage payments?
Photo Gallery | Murder Suspect Dorner's Las Vegas House | Southwest News

Eventually this will be part of the story. A beautiful 265,000 dollar Las Vegas house was no doubt part of his loses. (Why would someone living and working in Los Angeles buy an expensive house in Las Vegas?)

Mountain manhunt for ex-cop accused of killing 3 | ksl.com
(About 24 paragraphs down)
Dorner said in his online rant that after his dismissal that he lost everything, including his relationships with his mother, sister and close friends.
 
"After milder tear gas failed to bring Dorner out, deputies shot pyrotechnic tear gas canisters into the cabin...." abclocal.go.com

"....they eventually used heavy machinery to peel back walls and windows to see if they could see Dorner, who used smoke bombs to obscure their view. They eventually resorted to incendiary tear gas...." huffingtonpost.com

" An autopsy on Christopher Dorner, 33, found he was killed by a single shot to the head, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Captain Kevin Lacy told a news conference. Authorities have not yet determined who fired that fatal round.

"The information we have seems to indicate that the wound that took Christopher Dorner's life was self inflicted," Lacy said." Reuters

"But despite losing a central piece of her family's history, Martin said she feels like one of the luckier players in the tragic, week-long drama surrounding the massive manhunt for Dorner.

"Martin bought the Seven Oaks Cabins in 2005 as a getaway for her family and with the intent to rent out the six smaller cabins on the property, which has been featured in movies and television shows

"I'm not the worst victim," she said. "The one's are the families who lost their loved ones. Even my daughter said, 'Mom, it's a cabin. It's not a life.'"nbclosangles.com
 
-rags- said:
Not exactly what's reported. What say you?

Police Audio Reveals "Plan" to Burn Down Dorner's Cabin - YouTube


EASY fellas....
Click to expand...

And your point, and agenda, posting this was what???

For millennia the use of fire to overcome resistance during a siege has been common. The Police have an obligation to the public to end a situation like this for the safety of the public. It is clear from transmissions recorded on this U-Tube video that Dorner had every opportunity, even after the fire began, to walk out of the house/cabin with his hands in the air and surrender! He did not, but from all reports chose to instead commit suicide by shooting himself in the head. He did not die as a direct result of the fire!

The Fire Department was held back from the fire scene for their own safety, since it was unknown at that time if Dorner was still a threat. This is also common practice.

For whoever conjectured that the cabin owner had insurance, maybe, maybe not. There are two specific exclusions on the typical ISO HO-3 Form Homeowners policy or DP-1, 2, or 3 Dwelling Fire policies for rental properties. First are losses as a result of "acts of war", and second "Government Action". There can be little argument that loss of the building was a direct result of government action, regardless if the fire was deliberate or unintentional. Their recourse will be through the State of California for restitution, through the courts if necessary.

Bottom line, SO WHAT???????



If someone else responded similarly in posts 51-77 I apologize, I couldn't take all the BS being laid down in too many of the first 50. and didn't read them.
 
Last edited:
Our house in the north Georgia mountains. If somebody burned it down, I would be quite upset.
Click to expand...

I could see you being upset if you lost irreplaceable family mementos in a house fire....But...Come on. If the government burned down that house, it would be like hitting the lotto. You would recoup more than the house is worth, other than the family history. I mean, seriously? Are you going to tell me there's anything special about the craftsmanship or history in that house? Drywall, composite wood and fiberboard? As far as "arson" maybe you should read up on the elements of that particular crime. I love how people throw around the terms when it comes to crimes without having any idea of what they mean. Each crime has ELEMENTS. If you don't have all of the elements, you don't have the crime. Burning down the house in this case didn't even come close to the crime of Arson.
 
Alk8944 said:
And your point, and agenda, posting this was what???

Bottom line, SO WHAT???????
Click to expand...

That's easy! Since this wasn't being reported by anyone, it was to bring this "obviously compelling audio" to our Forum and get your thoughts on the matter. Thanks for your participation.... AND my guess is that you wouldn't know about ALL the things you just expressed to us, had I not started this thread.

Your welcome.
 
CALIF_GIRL saved me the trouble of typing the legally correct answer. Not to be too much of an arrogant jerk, but the MMQB by folks with little or no legal or LE background is unsound. In addition, as already noted, the term "burners" refers to the type of gas generating system; the hot ones work better, although they can have a collateral impact of being dangerous.

Nothing at all requires LE to suffer additional risk to take him safely into custody; the only person responsible for the safety of an offender who is not yet in custody is the offender. Dorner was just a crazy, murdering piece of garbage who got fired for dishonesty and thus forced out of LE because he did not belong. He did not come forward with his fabricated allegations about excessive force until weeks after the incident, when it became clear he was not going to make it out of the FTO car. As a result, he lost his clearance and could no longer serve n the Navy, he likely got his administrative separation letter just before he went off, since he did not make the necessary promotion to O-4 to be retained. There was no evidence that there even had been excessive force used in the incident; while some might disagree, LE fights are not pretty, and they are never fair. The cops get to use as much force as is needed to control the offender.

Even if the fire was the result of a conscious decision to burn the house with him in it, there is not the slightest question that the use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the controlling standard (4Th amendment, Graham v. Connor, as noted by CALIF_GIRL), and whether that deadly force was a bullet in the face, running him over with a car (that's happened in Washington), having his throat ripped out by a homeowner's dog, or a fire, is relevant only to the forensic pathologist doing the autopsy. This whole thing is a non-issue.
 
Much more to the story

There never was any doubt that he killed a few people and had big plans to kill many more.

All some of us want to know now is what really pushed him off the edge. Why did his family disown him?

Most of us are familiar with the various medias that always want to find something the police did wrong.

So how long has he been gone from the Los Angeles PD (3yrs?) and what has transpired during that time. Who conned him into buying a 265,000 dollar house hundreds of miles from where he worked. At what point in the upside down mortgages, did he buy and was it being repossessed. Did his family cosign the loan? (I believe Las Vegas and Florida were the worst for upside down loans -- owing more than you bought it for).

Why would his family care at all what jobs he had?
(see my previous post)
 
CALIF GIRL said:
These two incidents were with LAPD . This one was with San Bernadino County.
Click to expand...

Oh, they were there. It was pretty openly stated that LAPD "support" was flown in.

If it was the fire was caused by the gas canisters, I have no problem, that's the nature of the risks of the canister, just like cardiac arrest is a risk of using a tazer.

The tape makes it seem an awful lot like the fire was set intentionally. They could have gassed him till their heart's content, and even secretly hoped and prayed the place went up like a tinderbox, but conspiring with the overt(at least amongst the officer's involved) intent of setting the fire is wrong.

You would think the cops would have wanted to play this one as clean as possible given Dorner's accusations against the LAPD. I tend not to believe what a cop-killing lunatic has to say, but I would have gone for as much transparency through the whole thing.
 
MaximumLawman said:
I love how people throw around the terms when it comes to crimes without having any idea of what they mean. Each crime has ELEMENTS. If you don't have all of the elements, you don't have the crime. Burning down the house in this case didn't even come close to the crime of Arson.
Click to expand...

Depends on your state, sir. I'll go ahead and quote mine here.

IC 35-43-1-1
Arson
Sec. 1. (a) A person who, by means of fire, explosive, or destructive device, knowingly or intentionally damages:
(1) a dwelling of another person without the other person's consent;
(2) property of any person under circumstances that endanger human life;
(3) property of another person without the other person's consent if the pecuniary loss is at least five thousand dollars ($5,000); or
(4) a structure used for religious worship without the consent of the owner of the structure;
commits arson, a Class B felony. However, the offense is a Class A felony if it results in either bodily injury or serious bodily injury to any person other than a defendant.
(b) A person who commits arson for hire commits a Class B felony. However, the offense is a Class A felony if it results in bodily injury to any other person.
(c) A person who, by means of fire, explosive, or destructive device, knowingly or intentionally damages property of any person with intent to defraud commits arson, a Class C felony.
(d) A person who, by means of fire, explosive, or destructive device, knowingly or intentionally damages property of another person without the other person's consent so that the resulting pecuniary loss is at least two hundred fifty dollars ($250) but less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) commits arson, a Class D felony.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.3. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.40; Acts 1980, P.L.159, SEC.4; Acts 1981, P.L.302, SEC.1; Acts 1982, P.L.204, SEC.35; P.L.88-1999, SEC.1; P.L.123-2002, SEC.36.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. I don't see a court actually convicting, but based on the tape, I'd say all the "elements" are present for the charge in Indiana.

Now this occurred in California, and I can't account for their arson laws.
 
If a los angeles garbage truck driver went feral and published he was going to kill 50 of his ex coworkers, do you suppose the 10,000 man los angeles police department would get no time off until they ran him down?
 
Yes, if he actually started systematically stalking and killing them they would. But could you post a link that shows how all leave days were cancelled for the entire LAPD until they found Dorner?

Depends on your state, sir. I'll go ahead and quote mine here.

IC 35-43-1-1
Arson
Sec. 1. (a) A person who, by means of fire, explosive, or destructive device, knowingly or intentionally damages:
(1) a dwelling of another person without the other person's consent;
(2) property of any person under circumstances that endanger human life;
(3) property of another person without the other person's consent if the pecuniary loss is at least five thousand dollars ($5,000); or
(4) a structure used for religious worship without the consent of the owner of the structure;
commits arson, a Class B felony. However, the offense is a Class A felony if it results in either bodily injury or serious bodily injury to any person other than a defendant.
(b) A person who commits arson for hire commits a Class B felony. However, the offense is a Class A felony if it results in bodily injury to any other person.
(c) A person who, by means of fire, explosive, or destructive device, knowingly or intentionally damages property of any person with intent to defraud commits arson, a Class C felony.
(d) A person who, by means of fire, explosive, or destructive device, knowingly or intentionally damages property of another person without the other person's consent so that the resulting pecuniary loss is at least two hundred fifty dollars ($250) but less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) commits arson, a Class D felony.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.3. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.40; Acts 1980, P.L.159, SEC.4; Acts 1981, P.L.302, SEC.1; Acts 1982, P.L.204, SEC.35; P.L.88-1999, SEC.1; P.L.123-2002, SEC.36.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. I don't see a court actually convicting, but based on the tape, I'd say all the "elements" are present for the charge in Indiana.

Now this occurred in California, and I can't account for their arson laws.
Click to expand...

They didn't intentionally burn the place down. I covered that in previous posts. They intended to introduce gas into the structure to compel the guy to come out. The introduced the gas and he chose to kill himself rather than come out. The gas round incidentally caused a fire and that's what burned the place down. That's a far cry from "arson". Using your logic any doctor who has a patient die on the operating table should be charged with some form of homicide if the treatment is likely to cause serious harm or death.
 
Last edited:
The chief himself announced 12 hour shifts with no days off for anyone in the department. I am not going to view and research countless videos to prove what I seen, but its there. I just aint interested enough to search.
 
There's no way they cancelled all days off for the entire department and put the entire department on 12-hour shifts until Dorner was found. More hyperbole.
 
Doug M. said:
CALIF_GIRL saved me the trouble of typing the legally correct answer. Not to be too much of an arrogant jerk, but the MMQB by folks with little or no legal or LE background is unsound. In addition, as already noted, the term "burners" refers to the type of gas generating system; the hot ones work better, although they can have a collateral impact of being dangerous. As for the sun going down, who cares? They had all the resources in the world, an unlimited amount of stuff they could bring in. They could have ordered up a massive string of kleig lights, night vision goggles, etc. to cordon him off.

Nothing at all requires LE to suffer additional risk to take him safely into custody; the only person responsible for the safety of an offender who is not yet in custody is the offender. Dorner was just a crazy, murdering piece of garbage who got fired for dishonesty and thus forced out of LE because he did not belong. He did not come forward with his fabricated allegations about excessive force until weeks after the incident, when it became clear he was not going to make it out of the FTO car. As a result, he lost his clearance and could no longer serve n the Navy, he likely got his administrative separation letter just before he went off, since he did not make the necessary promotion to O-4 to be retained. There was no evidence that there even had been excessive force used in the incident; while some might disagree, LE fights are not pretty, and they are never fair. The cops get to use as much force as is needed to control the offender.

Even if the fire was the result of a conscious decision to burn the house with him in it, there is not the slightest question that the use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the controlling standard (4Th amendment, Graham v. Connor, as noted by CALIF_GIRL), and whether that deadly force was a bullet in the face, running him over with a car (that's happened in Washington), having his throat ripped out by a homeowner's dog, or a fire, is relevant only to the forensic pathologist doing the autopsy. This whole thing is a non-issue.
Click to expand...

I fully appreciate that the police on the scene very likely had the full legal authority to do what they did, BUT, that is NOT the point. The point is that they didn't HAVE to do it in the first place. They had him completely surrounded and trapped. All they had to do was sit back, call in the negotiators, and wait him out. He'd have either given up, committed suicide, or starved to death. Unless the status quo changed, there was no risk at this point to justify the officers taking any actions at all other than getting some coffee and settling down. They had complete control of the situation. In fact, sending officers close enough to deploy the 'burners' actually put them at unnecessary risk.

Here's the ultimate problem; the public was watching. They wanted to see the officers exercise professionalism and not act like the LA cops that shot up innocent women at the drop of a hat. Now, the police have an even larger negative image in the public mind than they had before. Don't believe me? Go to news websites, other discussion forums, etc. and see what the attitude of posters is. The folks at 4-chan even made an online video game where the gamer is Dorner and you score points by shooting cops (sick, I agree). The overwhelming vibe I'm hearing is exactly what I posted in the previous paragraph, the cops had no reason to not just wait the guy out and try to arrest him alive. That's the professionalism the public WANTS to see from police. They want to see cops they can trust. They want to see dedicated, professional, honest police. Every story in the media to the contrary just makes it harder for them.

Look, as a 20 year military Officer retiree, I respect the police and have always been polite with them. I am NOT bashing you, I am trying to assist you in telling you that the public is desperate to see cops they feel they can trust and depend on. You have to be ambassadors and lead the way to show the public the police they want to have. Whenever I was out in uniform, I made an extra large effort to always display a good image for the public to see. I abhorred any military member that did the slightest thing which impugned the service. I gave them absolutely NO benefit of the doubt, nor did I "cover" for them in any way. That is how it has to be. If the LA cops want to salvage anything from this, they need to fire the cops that shot at the ladies and the surfer guy. They need to make it very public that they have no tolerance for this. That's what I would have done to a fellow military member, I would have court martialed them for that. It's the only way to operate. You can't allow the public to see anything else.
 
Have you ever been in a house that has had all the sides pushed in by an armored vehicle? I really wonder how easy it would be to open such a door. Especially when they place is ablaze.

I have no real love for the guy, but I worry about the tactics used to kill him. The reason I worry is because with the uproar about guns and ammo, we could be next on their hate list.

I feel sure we'll be hearing more as this event and consequences unfold over the next year or two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Used a Winchester Shotgun to cut down a tree branch
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
john17427
J
chief38
YouTube has truly gone down the tubes as far as trustworthiness, ethics and the truth are concerned!
2 3
Replies
71
Views
3K
Oldengineer
O
P
New Tucker & Byrd HF3
Replies
12
Views
508
PauldL
P
oldbrownhat
Titanic scan reveals ground-breaking details of ship's final hours
Replies
0
Views
348
oldbrownhat
oldbrownhat
Greyman50
Holy Cow!!! 55th high school reunion
2 3
Replies
73
Views
3K
Norton 750
Norton 750

Latest posts

Back
Top