Posted on 02/13/2013 3:00:36 PM PST by Repeat Offender
A six-day California manhunt ended Tuesday with rogue ex-cop Christopher Dorner apparently dying in a cabin fire on Bear Mountain.
One of many big questions to be answered is how the deadly fire was started.
Multiple unconfirmed audio clips appear to show police officers talking about burning down the cabin in which the alleged cop-killer was hiding.
Deliberately starting a fire, rather than waiting out the suspect, could be seen as an extreme measure.
---(snip)
In an unconfirmed video showing live footage from KCAL9 Los Angeles, officers are apparently caught in the background around the 20 second mark saying, "burn that f------ house down." It continues:
[Inaudible]
"Burn him out!"
"Get to him right now, f------ burn this motherf-----!"
Another unconfirmed video posted to YouTube of television coverage from CBS 2 captures officers apparently saying, "burn it down, burn it down ... get the gas." Another officer says, "yeah, burn it down." The exchange happens around the 1:24 mark:
The Guardian reports that journalist Max Blumenthal was listening to the police scanners, and live-tweeting the event.
On the scanners, Blumenthal reports hearing an exchange where the police talk about using "burners." The Daily Caller is reporting that is police slang for tear gas.
"All right, Steve, we're gonna go, we're gonna go forward with the plan, with the burner."
"Copy," is the response.
"We want it, like we talked about."
"Seven burners deployed and we have a fire," says the first voice.
"Copy. Seven burners deployed and we have a fire," responds a female voice.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
No quibble with most of your statements which are quite logical and reasonable. He wasnt coming out alive. But we do have choices on how to execute someone. What one hears on the audio is not reason and logic as you stated but a mob wanting to burn him alive. That is what i object to. A hail of bullets or even a massive bomb would have been more humane than fire.
Yeah that means I believe police are subordinate to the people.
Amazing isnt it.
When the police admit the recordings are theirs then the recordings are no longer unconfirmed.
I know you probably had a little trouble in school and need your police union spokesman to tell you what to think.
The LAPD is bloodthirsty and incompetent, a dangerous combination.
If he were indeed still alive prior to the fire, why didn't he surrender peacefully?
Then you are stating that Dorner had authority over the police? Amazing!!!!!
Great, now can you provide a source from which you acquired your knowledge?
I know you probably had little trouble in school
You're correct, I had very little trouble in school.
The LAPD is bloodthirsty and incompetent
The LAPD wasn't the primary at Big Bear, cfriminal apologist.
Same tribal loyalty mentality, same tactics. I could post about LEO malfeasance featuring the same from today’s local paper but it probably wouldn’t matter to you. Life is a “Dirty Harry” movie for you I suppose.
More stupid, mindless generalizations.
I could post about LEO malfeasance
How many incidents daily are LEOs involved in nationwide?
I suppose.
Therein lies your problem. Supposition is NOT a substitute for facts and evidence.
That would be an uncommon reading of the Fifth Amendment. Currently the Amendment has this to say:
No person shall be [...] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
Due process does not mean "terminate on sight, no questions asked, using any method of death that you can imagine in the rage of the battle." If the police is allowed to burn whoever they want, as long as they allege "bad things" done by the person, what stops them from stealing a page from the book of Count Dracula and impaling people in the courtyard of the police department? Even the Spanish Inquisition did not burn people without a trial (however formal it was.)
A conspiracy nut would be quick to say that nobody really knows for a fact that Chris Dorner wrote this manifesto or killed those people. Anyone could have written the document, and anyone could have killed the victims. Dorner would be then "advised" to disappear because he is a dead man walking. I personally don't think that this conspiracy theory holds water, but it is theoretically possible - and that's why we have lawyers and courts, to find out what actually happened.
Without that safety check you, an innocent person, can be easily framed for any crime - and executed on the spot by the arriving police. Someone standing over a dead body is *always* the killer, never a Good Samaritan, isn't it so?
As matter of the Constitution, nobody in this land can even "surrender his right to due process." There is no such mechanism in the Constitution, and for a very good reason. Otherwise a tyrant will always find leverage against the opponent (his children, for example, or torture) to make him surrender his rights.
It is true that the police is allowed to use force to stop a crime in progress. However, with Dorner holed up in the house, there was no crime in progress, there was no imminent harm to anyone. I'd use the situation to field-test many robots that are made for exactly these situations. Some robots can even navigate complex urban terrain, climb stairs, carry weapons. Send them in, control them from a safe location, and let them break the doors, investigate who is inside and where, deploy pepper spray and Tasers and non-incendiary tear gas, and in the end the criminal inside will be forced to surrender.
Dorner wouldn't have killed himself if he could get out of it alive simply because he'd want the trial as a platform from which he can further expose the LAPD. The act of burning him was either stupid (if done without thinking) or criminal (if done to silence Dorner forever.)
Firing at law enforcement officers in the execution of their duties is an automatic forfeiture of due process. If you shoot at me you are forfeiting your right to due process as I have a right to self defense.
You keep calling me a criminal apologist. You are a liar.
No surprise for a boot licker
“Then you are stating that Dorner had authority over the police? Amazing!!!”
Liar and a fool
So cops shooting at little old ladies delivering newspapers are also giving up their right of due process?
You posted this, "I believe police are subordinate to the people." So are you a liar, fool or both?
Well you are doing everything you can to deflect blame from a killer/fugitive, aren't you?
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.
If (and that’s a big if) this was a deliberate execution, it may or may not have conformed with the primary agency’s use of deadly force policy. It is certainly questionable against the Garner standard. Assuming you are indeed from Alaska, you should know that the fleeing felon standard is even more restrictive in the use of deadly force there than elsewhere.
This really comes down to the legal interpretation of “fleeing felon.” If there was indeed a perimeter established and no active firefight, deliberately killing Dorner while holed up will be a tough sell.
If the information circling the bowl right now is true, I could bet my last dollar that I’d be answering some very tough questions from my chain of command. Police organizations vary from largely apolitical entities to elected Sheriffs for whom public perception is reality. I I hope as details emerge it is discovered that the killing was fully justified and exonerates officers who have obviously undergone a very stressful and sad ordeal — It truly is a higher calling to swallow your rage and personal feelings to do your duty as it’s defined by law.
On the other hand, it would be a tragedy if Dorner’s well-earned dirt-nap was obtained by coloring outside the lines.
They opened fire on him. He fled to another cabin.
I will say this, if anyone, LEO or otherwise begins shooting at me, bet your ass I will shoot back.
The point of the article was there were indications they previously planned to deploy the "burners" for the sole intended purpose of setting the building on fire; not for the purpose deploying CS to confuse, disrupt, debilitate.
Where does the police (aka state) derive its power?
cmon sport you should be able to answer this one. clue.. its not their glock
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.