Proof that LAPD intentionally set the fire (video)

[Kutnupe14]

I would say that due process goes right out the window if they were in a shoot out with him, but what I don't like at all is that unless they had x ray vision, they'd have had no way of knowing if there was a hostage in there with him when they set the place on fire.

I know "officer safety" and all that, but damn.

You don't need x-ray vision... thermal imaging does a pretty dang good job, at least for living persons.

 

[Benny]

You don't need x-ray vision... thermal imaging does a pretty dang good job, at least for living persons.

Pretty good or 100% perfect?

 

[Cpl. Klinger]

More to the point, even in the face of evidence proving this guy was guilty, why should the police take unilateral action? We get so worked up here about stuff the police does, yet here some are cheering them for burning a man alive rather than trying to bring him to justice. I get that he was a threat. I get that he was dangerous. What I don't get is how the police burning down a building to flush a man out is any better.

 

[public servant]

More to the point, even in the face of evidence proving this guy was guilty, why should the police take unilateral action? We get so worked up here about stuff the police does, yet here some are cheering them for burning a man alive rather than trying to bring him to justice. I get that he was a threat. I get that he was dangerous. What I don't get is how the police burning down a building to flush a man out is any better.

Again, the police asked him multiple times to end this and turn himself in. He stated how it would end in his own manifesto...that he'd go out in a blaze of glory.

He got his wish.

 

[stephen87]

But according to news reports and officers on scene, he attempted to come back in and was "pushed back inside." So if he attempted to come out, why were no orders given and instead he was forced inside?

If they didn't want him dead and it was his own choice, why did they open fire on 3 civilians believing it to be him?

 

[public servant]

But according to news reports and officers on scene, he attempted to come back in and was "pushed back inside." So if he attempted to come out, why were no orders given and instead he was forced inside?

If they didn't want him dead and it was his own choice, why did they open fire on 3 civilians believing it to be him?

Some of the reports I heard stated he came out firing. What would you have done? He was "pushed back" by returning gun fire. He was not literally shoved back into the cabin.

As for shooting at civilians... Those actions have already been condemned here.

 

[qwerty]

Some of the reports I heard stated he came out firing. What would you have done? He was "pushed back" by returning gun fire. He was not literally shoved back into the cabin.

Are you sure? I heard they used a device they just call "mr. thingy" and pushed him back inside?

[ame]http://youtu.be/chw1ubYk9IE[/ame]

 

[indytechnerd]

So what if I'm the owner of that cabin? Am I just ****ed? Why should I have to file a homeowners claim because the SWATtards torched it?

Now for time:
Will the body they found 'be' Dorner? I mean regardless of what some ME comes up with on a DNA test. I watched Running Man the other night, and the skewing of facts, body doubles, and 'creative editing' portrayed in the film didn't seem all that far fetched given the way our media is today.

 

[Classic]

The audio does indicate that LE did torch the building. Now reports say the person/body has not yet be ID'd as Dorner. Thus the LE on the scene torched the building without knowing if the person inside was the suspect.

 

[stephen87]

Some of the reports I heard stated he came out firing. What would you have done? He was "pushed back" by returning gun fire. He was not literally shoved back into the cabin.

As for shooting at civilians... Those actions have already been condemned here.

I never said he was shoved in the cabin. Reread what I typed. I put that he was "pushed back in," indicating that he was not literally shoved into the cabin, but that he deemed it safer in there that outside with officers firing on him.

 

[public servant]

I never said he was shoved in the cabin. Reread what I typed. I put that he was "pushed back in," indicating that he was not literally shoved into the cabin, but that he deemed it safer in there that outside with officers firing on him.

Seems to me it would have been safer putting your hands on your head and walking out the back door.

But per his own manifesto...that's not what he wanted.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Pretty good or 100% perfect?

Nothing is 100% perfect, but if the imagining equipment is working properly, there a ridiculously low margin of error. A human body is pretty easy to identify with such tools.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The audio does indicate that LE did torch the building. Now reports say the person/body has not yet be ID'd as Dorner. Thus the LE on the scene torched the building without knowing if the person inside was the suspect.

I wondering if you think that even makes a difference?

 

[stephen87]

Seems to me it would have been safer putting your hands on your head and walking out the back door.

But per his own manifesto...that's not what he wanted.

SO you were there? You know that he came out firing? Everything that I've seen indicated the house was not on fire at the time, he tossed a smoke grenade and they opened fire forcing him inside. There's no indications that he came out firing on officers from the reports I see. Please show me something that indicates otherwise.

As for the fire, we've all heard the audio. If it's authentic, then why did police say in the press conference say that the fire started after LE tossed smoke grenades inside? It seems pretty clear from the audio that the fire was started intentionally, again if it's authentic. My scanner kept going down during the standoff. I listened for about an hour and never heard this audio, but I was not listening to the feed at the point when they assaulted the cabin.

 

[public servant]

SO you were there? You know that he came out firing? Everything that I've seen indicated the house was not on fire at the time, he tossed a smoke grenade and they opened fire forcing him inside. There's no indications that he came out firing on officers from the reports I see. Please show me something that indicates otherwise.

As for the fire, we've all heard the audio. If it's authentic, then why did police say in the press conference say that the fire started after LE tossed smoke grenades inside? It seems pretty clear from the audio that the fire was started intentionally, again if it's authentic. My scanner kept going down during the standoff. I listened for about an hour and never heard this audio, but I was not listening to the feed at the point when they assaulted the cabin.

No Sir, I'm simply recalling news reports that I heard last night. That Dorner attempted to exit the cabin and fired on the police as he did. When they returned fire he re-entered the cabin.

I have no doubt the fire was intentionally set as a tactic to force him from the cabin. Unfortunately he chose another way out. Just as he said he would.

 

[Mounty09]

I kind of hope that it wasn't Dorner.

 

[pirate]

No Sir, I'm simply recalling news reports that I heard last night.

Because the media always gets the story right the first time.

Also, are you an expert on manifesto authentication? Due process is due process for a reason...We know not who posted it. Only what were told...

Everything we have heard about has been told to us by two sources.

1. The media - Who is wrong 70% of the time on how things happen or occured

2. LAPD - The department who is shooting at civilians left and right because someone "sort of" matched a description of the suspect. (Would you give up with your hands on your head knowing cops are shooting innocents that "sort of" look like you? Hell no you wouldn't.) Also, I might add, this same dept. is in cleanup mode for a **** up firing they did in 2008.


Saying that, I am fairly sure this man is guilty of what he is accused of. However, we have all seen plenty of instances over the years where stories were fabricated to get officials out of hot water. Ex. Ruby Ridge, Waco..etc...Point is, due process is there to find actual guilt if there is any. Its not up to the cops to be Judge Dredd. That isn't their jobs and it isn't constitutional to premeditate a plan to burn a man alive regardless of what he is suspected of.

 

[stephen87]

Because the media always gets the story right the first time.

Also, are you an expert on manifesto authentication? Due process is due process for a reason...We know not who posted it. Only what were told...

Everything we have heard about has been told to us by two sources.

1. The media - Who is wrong 70% of the time on how things happen or occured

2. LAPD - The department who is shooting at civilians left and right because someone "sort of" matched a description of the suspect. (Would you give up with your hands on your head knowing cops are shooting innocents that "sort of" look like you? Hell no you wouldn't.) Also, I might add, this same dept. is in cleanup mode for a **** up firing they did in 2008.


Saying that, I am fairly sure this man is guilty of what he is accused of. However, we have all seen plenty of instances over the years where stories were fabricated to get officials out of hot water. Ex. Ruby Ridge, Waco..etc...Point is, due process is there to find actual guilt if there is any. Its not up to the cops to be Judge Dredd. That isn't their jobs and it isn't constitutional to premeditate a plan to burn a man alive regardless of what he is suspected of.

Don't forget, LAPD was also shooting people who did not match the description at all except for they had a blue pickup truck. And then there's the case of the white guy that they pulled over because he had a truck and then shot at him down the road after they had already verified it was not him.

 

[Benny]

I kind of hope that it wasn't Dorner.

Uh, why?

 

[public servant]

Because the media always gets the story right the first time.

Also, are you an expert on manifesto authentication? Due process is due process for a reason...We know not who posted it. Only what were told...

Everything we have heard about has been told to us by two sources.

1. The media - Who is wrong 70% of the time on how things happen or occured

2. LAPD - The department who is shooting at civilians left and right because someone "sort of" matched a description of the suspect. (Would you give up with your hands on your head knowing cops are shooting innocents that "sort of" look like you? Hell no you wouldn't.) Also, I might add, this same dept. is in cleanup mode for a **** up firing they did in 2008.


Saying that, I am fairly sure this man is guilty of what he is accused of. However, we have all seen plenty of instances over the years where stories were fabricated to get officials out of hot water. Ex. Ruby Ridge, Waco..etc...Point is, due process is there to find actual guilt if there is any. Its not up to the cops to be Judge Dredd. That isn't their jobs and it isn't constitutional to burn a man alive regardless of what he is suspected of.

I never claimed media reports were accurate. I simply quoted them.

I have no reason to doubt the manifesto is legitimate. Do you have inside information? Or just stating your opinion...as I was?