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

[rags]

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

^^^ What he said. ^^^
All negotiations were met with more gunfire. Maybe not the correct choice of how to end it, but end it they did. Dick, you're right. It will all come out in the worsh eventually. What is done is done.

 

[Doug M.]

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.

*
Military ROE and LE use of force are very different and have almost no overlap. This is a common issue on another forum comprised of a large percentage of mil and LE folks; we have different ways of looking at the world. Most cops are boggled by the restrictive nature of the manner in which the military responds to situations, and I have had encounters with military folks who are likewise boggled at how we do our jobs and the flexibility we have in use of force. Most cops I know who have prior military backgrounds have had to work hard to purge the military view and adjust to LE in order to function. (I'll admit I do not have military time because Uncle Sam was not dumb enough.) I have worked in joint ops with military LE, and their UCMJ context is very different, and the abuse I saw officers dump on LE based on rank was appalling. (Being old and well educated, and not subject to the military context, I was not at all intimidated by officers; O6s are food, not an apex predator.) The difference is not "bad", but it is foreign, and real, and driven by context.

The response to a barricaded murder who had already wounded one cop and killed another while barricaded is nothing like any other barricaded person. By no stretch of the imagination did LE have complete control of the situation. (BTW, it was not arson, even if the cops had done so on purpose - there was no criminal intent.)

I am not familiar with any situation with a surfer, but the pickup truck incident will be the subject of a pair of parallel investigations, IA (administrative) and criminal. The rules for cops and use of force have nothing to do with being RIGHT - they are based on being objectively reasonable under the circumstances known to the officers. While I am glad I am not in their shoes, since one could believe they really erred, rushing to judgment is not a good idea.

As far as what the crazies on ARFcom and other tin foil wearers say, we can't help that. I stay away from those places because one cannot reason with a person who is not reasonable. Most people have no idea what LE force is like. Most of my fellow prosecutors are out of touch, as far as I have seen, and these are people who have legal training and are in the same system. American LE does not kill near as many offenders as it should; we shoot at MOST 1-2% of the offenders that could/should be shot. (Also true of private citizens, and probably the percentage is even worse.)

 

[MaximumLawman]

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 feel this could happen to you because if the government can "get away with this" against this guy, the government might do the same thing to you because the government doesn't want you to have guns? Don't you think it's a little paranoid to think that because the government used extraordinary means to subdue a man who already killed and vowed to kill some more of the people trying to capture him, that that translates to a greater likelyhood that "they'd" rip down your house with a bulldozer and capture you with fire for different reasons?

Is there any event that the cops handle that won't be extrapolated by people to: "Oh my God, that could have been ME! *but for different reasons..."

And...Richard.....after taking an interviewing class here or there, I have to ask you about your qualifying statement and the qualifiers of others who start out all of their cop bashing with an "I'm not cop hater or an UNREASONABLE monday morning quarterbacker" qualifier... You say that you "have no real love" for this particular cop and non-cop killer. Well, exactly what kind of love DO you have for him? Just a potentially kindred spirit, Butch and Sundance kind of love?

All they had to do was sit back, call in the negotiators, and wait him out.

While he manipulated "them" to just show a little bit of head from behind cover so he could take it off with his rifle or so he could better prep the place with IED's to get a few more of them on final entry or at the time he "surrendered". Good thinking. The cops didn't have any business using decisive means to end his aggression the way they did. If you can see HIM, he can see YOU and if he can see you he can shoot you. Most barricaded gunmen are just looking for a way out and time is on the side of the negotiator. A very small percentage know they are going to die either by their own hand or by the police. Given that this guy wanted to kill as many cops as possible and was NOT looking for a way out since he closed that door himself, tearing the building down around him or trying to teargas him into submission before dark was perfectly reasonable.

I have to wonder if the same guys who are criticizing the cops now would have said, had Dorner been taken alive: "See, it figures, take care of their own...they never would have made an effort to take ME alive if I'd have killed a few cops and cops' family members and threatened to kill a hundred more of them. Nosirree, they probably would have burned my house down with me in it!" Actually, on second thought, I really don't wonder that much.

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.

News websites and online forums are hardly the place to go to get an objective sampling of public opinion. Case in point, the posts that eventually get around to: "That's why most people don't like the police." Guess what? Most normal people do not have any problems with the police beyond some minor resentment for a traffic or parking ticket.

 

[COL Jagdog]

Depending on the type of CS round used, fire is a well-known possible secondary effect of using certain types of CS round -- it is very possible that the on-scene commanders considered the fact that using a CS round that has a secondary thermal effect could set fire to the structure and they probably discussed this -- i.e. "what happens if we get a fire as a secondary effect" -- they may have worried that Dorner might use the ensuing smoke emanating from the cabin as a screen to cover his movements or escape. They obviously wanted to compromise his ability to shoot back and harm more LEO's (one of the specific uses of CS is suppression - render the suspect incapable of taking effective actions) so there was a very compelling reason to use it.. As we all know, bullets may ignite fires as well, so it is not only munitions that can cause fires. It may very well be that they contemplated a fire might result from CS use but elected to use it anyway for suppression, not because they specifically intended to "burn him out" (my italics).

Homeowners insurer will cover their losses and should have a right of subrogation against the state/county to recover what they pay. State/county should have obligation to pay homeowner's deductible and any losses not covered under the fire policy.

One would have to drink a ton of liberal kool-aid to believe that the "tea and crumpets" approach would have worked on Dorner - i.e.
polite attempts to engage him in dialogue to convince him to lay down his arms and surrender -- about as realistic as finding a quadricorn
(4-horned unicorn) in your back yard.

 

[COL Jagdog]

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.

You are correct that most insurance policies (HO form policies) have terrorism exclusion clauses (folks can buy riders to cover terrorism/terroristic acts. However, the cabin did not burn down because of an act of terrorism (Dorner did not attack it and burn it down)-- it burned down because the authorities began knocking the walls down to evict Dorner and then fired the CS rounds to supress Dorner -- the acts of the authorities are not "terroristic acts" -- my guess is that the HO coverage applies.

 

[Delos]

Delusions of Grandeur, Flack Jacket, Rifle With Silencer

I started reading Dorner's manifesto. One of the big indicators of paranoia is not just unwarranted suspicion and anger - Delusions of Grandeur is one of the biggies.

And his manifesto reeks of "Delusions of Grandeur".

Every kid leaves grade school understanding some basic laws of the physical city. You do not disappear and reappear at will.

If there was such a person as Batman, he would be seen driving down the same street each time the bat signal was obvious. Kids would hike up the road and hide in the bushes to watch the fake hillside open up and his car emerge.

The Joker would not disappear off the edge of the movie screen -- in real life.

And in real life someone who was living in the environment he thought he was living in would write a book. Or have a ghost writer do it for him.

It would be a bit scary to be in a shootout with some delusional person with bulletproof vest and a sniper rifle with a silencer. Someone who has already killed and who really thinks he can become invisible and stalk and kill many other humans at will.

I feel comfortable that it finally ended. That he got what he wanted sooner than he imagined.