Posted on 02/14/2013 6:21:43 AM PST by KeyLargo
Edited on 02/14/2013 9:25:10 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Police in Christopher Dorner standoff launched incendiary tear gas into cabin
By CHUCK BENNETT and DAVID K. LI From Post Wires Last Updated: 6:14 AM, February 14, 2013
Murderous ex-cop Christopher Jordan Dorner wanted to go out in a blaze of glory — and the sheriff’s deputies who surrounded his California mountain hideout provided the flames.
The San Bernardino County cops torched the wooden cabin with highly flammable “incendiary tear gas” as Dorner took refuge Tuesday, apparently burning him to a crisp.
“Burn this mf--er!” one officer shouted as they had Dorner — who had earlier killed a deputy and seriously wounded another — pinned down in the cabin, according to police radio transmissions.
Amid sounds of gunfire, voices can be head shouting, “Burn it down!” and “Shoot the gas!”
Excerpt, read more at nypost
Try to keep up, grasshopper. Nowhere have I defended the cops involved in the shootings of the surfer or the two women.
How about the incident in NYC where a black off duty cop saw someone breaking into his car. He chased the guy down the block and had his gun out. Two off duty cops saw him chasing the perp and without any warning killed the cop.
This is just another instant of trigger happy cops.
For one thing, cops back then weren't into mind-altering drugs like anabolic steroids and stuff like that. There are MANY cops today who are on steroids and other drugs, and that crap totally distorts their mental capacity to be a respectable policeman. On the other side of physique, a lot of them are fatsos.
There is also the racial quota system, wherein merit is not necessarily the reason for hiring/reward, and so forth.
There are also the feminist butch women "cops" who have a chip on their shoulder to match their general contempt for mankind and society.
Then there is the FACT that many people who become cops today have some kind of psychopathic interest in having a weapon and power over the little people, and subsequently abuse that power.
Some are corrupt, some are not. Some are into steroids and other drugs, some are not. Point is, these "cops" of today are not the same policemen of yesterday by a LONG SHOT.
Not All Tear Gas Canisters Are Flammable
SANTA MARIA, Calif. - The San Bernardino County Sheriff says his deputies did not intentionally burn down the cabin that Christopher Dorner was barricaded in. He says pyrotechnic tear gas that was shot into the cabin was the cause of the fire.
All tear gas is made up of either pepper spray or a man-made chemical. What type of canister is used and how it’s deployed changes with each situation.
“It catches fire and there would be flame and smoke shooting out of these ports on top,” says Detective Jason Zickuhr as he shows off a flammable tear gas canister.
Zickuhr goes through the arsenal of tear gas canisters used in SWAT team operations. This particular canister would be put in what is called a burn safe before being thrown into a house, which keeps the flames from catching anything on fire.
“We don’t want to cause fires, we don’t want to cause exposure to neighbors, innocent people,” says Zickuhr.
But not all canisters have exposed flames.
“It has the same type of fuse in here which when exploded, the sides of the can open up and powder is thrown throughout the room,” says Zickuhr, referring to another type of canister.
Not all canisters are the same size and shape either. A small, bullet-sized canister would be used to get someone out of a car or a bathroom. A larger can would be used for someone in a big room.
Former FBI detective Dan Payne says authorities try to be selective in their use of tear gas and only use it in dangerous situations with armed suspects.
“You don’t want to insert SWAT or officers into the structure because of the danger so you hopefully try to disorient or disable through the application of gas,” says Payne.
Zickuhr says the variety of canisters can prevent a fire from happening in the first place.
“If I don’t know what might happen, I’d probably use a different deployment method,” says Zickuhr.
http://www.kcoy.com/story/21202096/not-all-tear-gas-cannisters-are-flammable
>> Well, that depends; just because he’s a uniformed officer doesn’t mean he’s a good-guy.
>
>Do you believe Dorner asked the 34 year old officer, father of two young girls, prior to killing him?
What’s that got to do with anything? My point is that merely being in uniform is no guarantee of righteousness.
>>Do you remember the Indian woodcarver
>
>Yes, are you claiming he gave Dorner permission to go on a killing spree?
Um, honestly, where would you even get that idea?
It was an illustration of the point that just because someone is wearing a uniform doesn’t make them not-a-thug; there are plenty of recent and semi-recent [1.5 decades] events that certainly justify a default stance of “I don’t trust the police” — just coming to mind: Waco, Ruby Ridge, the woodcarver, the costco guy (the one where all the video vanished after it was sent to ‘be processed’), the motorcycle guy, the AZ marine (you remember, the one where the video showed the SWAT bunched around the door one guy practically tip-toeing to get his shots in) and many more (just in this incident the newspaper delivery & surfboard-guy).
In fact, the last two incidents there prove the Law Enforcement were not concerned with the safety of the general populous. Take a look at the pictures of those vehicles (those are only the holes where they hit the vehicle) what about all the other rounds? No, these “police” were waging war and they were unconcerned with anyone else who might be in the area.
I’m not saying that Dorner was a good-guy; what I’m saying is I do not trust the police — and neither do a LOT of other people. But, hey, “Law Enforcement” has been going that direction for YEARS, they have truly worked hard for the distrust heaped upon them.
I recognized Dorner's military and police service as something that should have been taken into consideration during the negotiation process. Your impetuous attitude and premature hostility is EXACTLY the same mentality the cops had when they laid waste to the cabin.
Pulling the police back, sealing the area, scanning the area from the air using infrared, and having a few of his Navy buddies talk to him via bullhorn/cellphone would have almost guaranteed a better outcome than the one we saw.
You clearly don't understand anything about the profession and brotherhood of the military, and clearly can't handle the truth. That's why I am done talking to you on this issue.
I hadn't heard of that one; doesn't surprise me though.
But it illustrates the difference between "Law Enforcement" and "Peace Officer" -- The former are unconcerned with justice, only what amounts to following orders, while the latter were about upholding peace... and that means concerned with Justice. (Peace is not the absence of War, but the presence of Justice.)
It was a response to what you stated, not my question.
You admit that the citizen is the commissioning authority for institution of the police,
Those same citizens also grant the police authority to enforce the laws, solve crimes and apprehend criminal suspects using deadly force if necessary. How many times have you shot at a police officer?
That's what criminals and criminal apologists say.
I am done talking to you on this issue.
Thank you, but you weren't talking you were emoting.
Honestly, fewer than I should have.*
(You're making the assumption that whatever the police do is legitimate, that is an invalid assumption.)
* -- Zero, but there are times I would have been lawfully justified doing so.
My bro and I was discussing this at lunch. Who is more apt to kick a suspect in the head, a 270-300lb male officer or a whatever weight female officer?
If Dorner had rolled up on me it would just be , “Yes sir, no sir, I understand sir”
I did a training class with NYC cops and we had one female with us and she was trying harder than everyone else in the group. She was the only one who wiped out one of the cars.
Is that so? Maybe you would like to remove your foot from you rmouth before you choke.
To: driftdiver
cops shooting at little old ladies delivering newspapers are also giving up their right of due process?
No dummy, the old ladies didn't fire on the cops, did they? The cops involved should be fired and be held criminally and financially responsible, IMO.
236 posted on Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:43:33 PM by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
When you open fire on police you've made a conscious decision to surrender your right to due process. So in case you forget, when you are stopped for any infraction of the law, don't open fire on the officer or he may take it as a sign that you are attempting to kill him and he'll return fire.
They absolutely had to act, because someone overheard Dorner pouring gasoline and preparing to light it up. Just like David Koresh did.
You stated, "just because he’s a uniformed officer doesn’t mean he’s a good-guy." Do you believe Dorner asked his victims if they were good guys before murdering them?
Um, honestly, where would you even get that idea?
You brought it up for what reason? To justify Dorner's killing of 4 innocent people?
It was an illustration of the point that just because someone is wearing a uniform doesn’t make them not-a-thug
Nor do those relatively few incidents make all LEOs thugs. Does it?
these “police” were waging war
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
I do not trust the police
Under present day circumstances why would the police trust you?
Yes, you are. You say you aren't, but you do not acknowledge that there are times when a citizen's firing on a police officer is justified.
You make the police both of less responsibility and less accountability than you would your fellow citizen: why?
When you open fire on police you've made a conscious decision to surrender your right to due process.
No, you do not. That's as stupid as saying "because there were accusations of child molestation at Koresh's Branch Davidian that fully indemnifies the ATF and DOJ from their actions, justifying their use of force for alleged taxation issues."
IOW -- YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE NECESSARY FORCE, INCLUDING DEADLY FORCE, TO PROTECT YOURSELF AND OTHERS.
So in case you forget, when you are stopped for any infraction of the law, don't open fire on the officer or he may take it as a sign that you are attempting to kill him and he'll return fire.
Ah, so just because I'm stopped means I'm going to shoot him. That's really, really... silly. Of course what about the other way:
Imagine you're at home and see a police officer on your property, in your drive way peering into your vehicle. You exit the home and approach asking what he's doing, he tells you it's none of your business, and to go back inside. You tell him that he's on your property and you want to know his business there. He persists in intimidation, placing his hand on his firearm and telling you to get inside.
The above happened to my own mother. No explanation, no warrant. Departing from the historic, let's enter the hypothetical:
Would she be a lawbreaker for (a) shooting him then and there, or (b) threatening him with force if he refused to leave?
Do the names McVeigh, Hassan and Manning mean anything to you? You're the poster who is running away.
Was it a driving course?
>> What’s that got to do with anything?
>
> You stated, “just because he’s a uniformed officer doesn’t mean he’s a good-guy.”
> Do you believe Dorner asked his victims if they were good guys before murdering them?
Irrelevant to my points — I’m not justifying Dorner, I’m questioning the legitimacy and trustworthiness of the police.
>> Um, honestly, where would you even get that idea?
>
> You brought it up for what reason? To justify Dorner’s killing of 4 innocent people?
No, because you seem to have the “police = good-guy” mentality ingrained — it certainly looks like that from the way that you phrase things.
>> It was an illustration of the point that just because someone is wearing a uniform doesn’t make them not-a-thug
>
> Nor do those relatively few incidents make all LEOs thugs. Does it?
Relatively few incidents?
Wow — You utterly fail to realize the amount of corruption, and its effects by being unaccounted for.
Let’s take that Costco incident, I think the “perp’s” name was Scott, it might not have been but let’s say it was. Eyewitnesses said that he was given conflicting commands, their recording cell-phones confiscated, and the security tapes were taken — all of this evidence disappeared or was hushed up. How many were involved, not in Scott’s shooting, but the clearing of evidence thereof? And that’s just one incident. How many “good cops” have to keep their mouths shut to allow something like this evidence-corruption to happen? (Or is tampering with evidence not a crime?)
>> I do not trust the police
>
>Under present day circumstances why would the police trust you?
Well, I’m a former serviceman... so the government says they _shouldn’t_.
(After all, I might be a terrorist.)
I proved you wrong again and being the emotionally unbalanced poster that you are, you refuse to see it even though it's right in front of you in black and white.
there are times when a citizen's firing on a police officer is justified.
List them. Was Dorner's firing on police justified?
No, you do not.
Then go ahead and start shooting and see what the results are.
so just because I'm stopped means I'm going to shoot him.
You're acting like a loose cannon Dorner here. I'm just giving you fair warning.
Yup
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.