Proof that LAPD intentionally set the fire (video)

[T.Lex]

Guys - hate to break it to you (unless you all are just messing around), but the Daily Courant is like the Onion - satire. They are the ones that "broke" the news that Sarah Palin was going to go on air with a show on Al Jazeera. The jazz band shooting is made up.

Maybe I should have bolded the if. I'm pretty sure LAPD, at this point, will do whatever it takes to save face. Even though, I don't think they could do that.

Are you sure?

It is a thin difference between unconscious and holed up in a cabin and not a risk to anyone. Plus, we don't know if he was unconscious in the cabin - he may have been wounded in the various firefights, too. (Granted, that's a big assumption based on the previous LAPD examples of marksmanship.)

As far as I know, there were no reports of him shooting when the tear gas was deployed. If they could shoot into the house, he could've shot out. (That's what I was always told - if you can see them, they can see you.)

He was no danger to anyone but the trained professionals up there, who could control the risk of exposure to him.

They had him at their mercy.

 

[SideArmed]

We have stuff that will "see" through walls... if that is the question?

Oh wait,

 

[miguel]

I hate Jazz

Snoopy doesn't.

 

[Max Volume]

Yeah yeah. I just woke up and didn't have my coffee.

 

[stephen87]

Guys - hate to break it to you (unless you all are just messing around), but the Daily Courant is like the Onion - satire. They are the ones that "broke" the news that Sarah Palin was going to go on air with a show on Al Jazeera. The jazz band shooting is made up.


Are you sure?

It is a thin difference between unconscious and holed up in a cabin and not a risk to anyone. Plus, we don't know if he was unconscious in the cabin - he may have been wounded in the various firefights, too. (Granted, that's a big assumption based on the previous LAPD examples of marksmanship.)

As far as I know, there were no reports of him shooting when the tear gas was deployed. If they could shoot into the house, he could've shot out. (That's what I was always told - if you can see them, they can see you.)

He was no danger to anyone but the trained professionals up there, who could control the risk of exposure to him.

They had him at their mercy.

I understand that he was still a threat. Could they have possibly waited him out? Did they absolutely HAVE to burn the cabin down with someone, presumably him, inside? I don't think they can save face at this point. They've shot multiple innocent people, destroyed innocent people's property, put aside thousands of people's rights, all for one guy. Was he dangerous? Yes. Was he worth putting anyone not involved in the hospital? No.

 

[cfl4rat]

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.

"Bring him to justice" What really?.. like our judicial system is worth a sh*t any more. The way i look at it is the second you take a life the only justice is death! plain and simple

 

[tj_v89]

I understand the human nature part of that, but what about the professionalism?

Let's change the scenario a bit. Let's say he was found unconscious after one of his car crashes (that may be another area LAPD needs some remedial training). Would the officers have been ok to "take him out" in that situation?

I'll give you that, but we can play hypothetical scenarios all day. Given the information that you and I have, and the rest of America for that reason, I have no problem with the tactics used. To address your question, if he is unconscious and rendering no resistance, then I wouldn't see the need to kill him. But barricading yourself in a cabin in the woods after killing/wounding several, is a little bit different scenario than someone who is unconscious after a vehicle accident, wouldnt you say?

 

[tj_v89]

"Bring him to justice" What really?.. like our judicial system is worth a sh*t any more. The way i look at it is the second you take a life the only justice is death! plain and simple

^^^^^AGREE^^^^^^

lets say that they do take him alive, then what? Due process? HAHAHA....yea, let the lawyers take control and see what happens :-)

 

[4sarge]

All is Good, just ask Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton says, "What difference at this point does it make? It is
our job to make sure that it doesn't happen again."

 

[T.Lex]

But barricading yourself in a cabin in the woods after killing/wounding several, is a little bit different scenario than someone who is unconscious after a vehicle accident, wouldnt you say?

Not really, since it would have been Dorner in the accident.

In the sense that, he poses no risk to the public either way. And, holed up in the cabin, the officers on the scene are at some risk, but presumably they are in cover. Or, if they are out of cover and he is not shooting, then how big of a risk is he?

The same professionalism that would prevent an officer from a summary execution of an unconscious Dorner should have prevented the controlled burn of his tomb.

IMHO

 

[tj_v89]

Not really, since it would have been Dorner in the accident.

In the sense that, he poses no risk to the public either way. And, holed up in the cabin, the officers on the scene are at some risk, but presumably they are in cover. Or, if they are out of cover and he is not shooting, then how big of a risk is he?

The same professionalism that would prevent an officer from a summary execution of an unconscious Dorner should have prevented the controlled burn of his tomb.

IMHO

Thats a valid point, but I will agree to disagree, good sir!

 

[Denny347]

I kind of hope that it wasn't Dorner.

WTF?

 

[T.Lex]

Thats a valid point, but I will agree to disagree, good sir!

Very well, but that's not nearly as much fun.



One other point, though - the family of one of the North Hollywood shootout guys sued LAPD because he bled out. There's a good chance, if Dorner has any family, they might be able to sue under a similar theory. Particularly if SBSD/LAPD lit the fire without any fire rescue equipment around. I don't remember how the shootout case was decided, and no comment on the rightness or wrongness of such a lawsuit, just throwing it out there.

Just keep in mind that it is generally a good thing that we can sue the government for constitutional violations.

 

[Denny347]

 

[tj_v89]

Very well, but that's not nearly as much fun.



One other point, though - the family of one of the North Hollywood shootout guys sued LAPD because he bled out. There's a good chance, if Dorner has any family, they might be able to sue under a similar theory. Particularly if SBSD/LAPD lit the fire without any fire rescue equipment around. I don't remember how the shootout case was decided, and no comment on the rightness or wrongness of such a lawsuit, just throwing it out there.

Just keep in mind that it is generally a good thing that we can sue the government for constitutional violations.

That is another really valid point....I will now be interested to see how that is pursued!

 

[UncleMike]

For those who are having a pity party over that MURDERER......
This is how his mother reacted to the unfolding situation at the cabin.
Dorner

Go figure...

 

[Kutnupe14]

I am curious as to which thermal imaging system they used that is capable of seeing through walls and/or glass. So yes, they would have needed some Superman X-ray vision.

A good job at seeing through walls and windows? What thermal are you using?

Not through walls and windows, and even so, "ridiculously low margin of error" is BS. I've used thermal imaging devices that our most elite military units use, cost 5 & 6 figures, and they still leave a lot of margin for error. Sure, I could identify if there is a human, but it would be more challenging to tell how many if there were multiples standing close together, especially at ranges I would consider reasonably safe in such a standoff situation. There is no "identifying" anything. You can merely tell if there is a warm body present.

Can I ask you a serious question? What unit are you implying they used to identify the number of people in the cabin through the walls etc. And what unit have you personally used that has this capability?

This ^^^^

Hey, I have no issue being wrong. And I assure you, I'll be wrong again. That said, thermal imagining cannot see through walls (nor glass), meaning my premise was incorrect, and your contestation, valid. Benny would be right in saying that law enforcement on the scene would have not known if other persons were in the cabin.

See, it ain't that hard.

 

[CountryBoy19]

I see, based on your location, that we may have some mutual friends. QUOTE]
I suspect we may...

 

[stephen87]

For those who are having a pity party over that MURDERER......
This is how his mother reacted to the unfolding situation at the cabin.
Dorner

Go figure...

I wouldn't say pity party, more of LE went about this all the wrong way.

 

[UncleMike]

I wouldn't say pity party, more of LE went about this all the wrong way.

1. Maybe....
2. Probably...
3. Could be....
4. I don't know....
Take your pick.
But playing shoulda/woulda/coulda at this point is nothing more than the ongoing LEO bashing mentality that infects some of the "people" here.
The usual suspects always have an answer for everything that the Cops say and do and are as full of crap as anyone else who tries to second guess something that they have absolutely NO knowledge of. Their sum total of knowledge comes from the news media, which we all know from their coverage of the gun issues are always right.