The weapon of choice employed again?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Has this been CONFIRMED????

This just doesn't seem right to me. The fire started less than three hours after they cornered the suspect in the cabin.

The smoke grenade was thrown by LE to help them recover a downed officer. LOTS of gunfire during that smoke grenade! The video is incredible!

But to burn him out? I think we need to find out how the fire started before passing any judgment. And can someone verify the authenticity of that radio exchange?

Please understand that I hold LEOs in the highest regard. The following is about SPECIFIC incidents that I don’t believe reflect on most LEOs. That being said, LAPD actions in some respects seem as criminal as the suspect in this case; to wit:

1. Firing on two newspaper deliver ladies who drive a similar truck as the suspect and are "throwing something" (newspaper) at one of the listed priority target’s house? Come on, you weren’t trained to fire on anything until you verify that the target is indeed a danger to you or those you are protecting.

2. Firing on an innocent man because he is driving a similar truck to the suspect. This gunfire causes a 911 call to report gunfire and so...

3. ... A few blocks away another police vehicle spots a pickup similar to the suspect’s while responding to the 911 call of gunfire, a traffic collision occurs and the officers start shooting at yet another innocent person whose only crime is driving a large 4-door pickup.

So while this fire would seem to fit the bill for a vigilante response, it does not seem to fit with proper police procedures in such a high visibility case; or any properly investigated case.

On the other hand, listening to Lt. Patrick Foy of the US Forestry Service describing the initial encounter with the suspect by his game wardens was truly harrowing! The first Warden to return fire used what Lt. Foy described as an AR15 Platform Rifle but in .308 caliber. It is nice to know that the Game Wardens are well armed (Lt. Foy said this is one of four weapons issued to each warden).
With all the bullets flying it is surprising that only two officers were hit. Sadly one officer succumbed to his injuries. It was especially heart rending to see the impromptu honor escort of 4 motorcycles leading the Coroner’s van from the hospital followed by dozens of police units.

May God watch over all our men and women in Law Enforcement. God bless all of you LEOs and former LEOs.
 
manta49, aside from ethical questions about even token attempts to effect an arrest, there is the larger issue of potential hostages.

In other words, what if there had been a hostage or two in there?

The officers could not have known, definitively, that there were none without approaching the cabin or sending in some sort of robot.

So, they seem to have just been lucky.
 
The thug had already murdered 3 innocents, then killed a cop who was taking part in the fire fight outside the cabin, so there was no more need to wait for him as far as I'm concerned----he had earned a sniper bullseye on his forehead. On the other hand, starting a fire the way they did....just looks bad, like Soviet style resolution. It's no worse to burn him than to snipe him, but it simply looks bad. I personally wouldn't care if they had brought in an Apache with 30mm cannon to finish him. Put it this way----if that was your cabin and he had just slain your wife, would you want to make sure he was arrested, or killed? I'd want him dead as a doornail.

There was absolutely no more need to have additional officers or innocents slain by this thug. I thank them for ending it right then and there as opposed to having to spend literally millions of dollars to prosecute him and then keep his sorry hide alive for 40 years.
 
FairWarning, would you be singing the same song if it had turned out there were an elderly couple also in the cabin? Just because it seems to have turned out well, this time, does not mean we should be ok with it - because that would give tacit approval for the next time, when the cops might not be so lucky with regard to the body count.

Or have you forgotten what happened at Waco?
 
Thermal vision would/could have given them a good idea. Until the fire started. However it started.

would you want to make sure he was arrested, or killed? I'd want him dead as a doornail.
Click to expand...

If I get to pick, I'll take quadraplegic going through the automatic death penalty appeals process.

If I don't get to pick that much, I'll still take arrested. I'll get more closure by making the victim statement at trial and then attending his lethal injection, firing squad, or electrocution than watching parts of what MAY have been his death on TV.
 
I'll take arrested, tried, convicted and in prison - I have extensive personal experience with prison, and he would have NOT had a fun time - cop killers do NOT fare well.
 
I wasn't there, so I wont comment on this particular incident.

But as to communication:

Communication is available I don't care where you are.

RMI's (Remote Mobile Investigators) or otherwise known as Bomb Robots have a means to communicate with the bandit and the police without exposing anyone to danger.

The Bomb Squad robots have a speaker and microphone attached. You can be, lets say 200 feet away under cover and have a conversation with the bandit.

I was the senior Tec for our bomb squad and was responsible for maintaince on our RMI. We did a lot of work with SWAT and Hostage Neg. in using the robot for communication, plus for delivering food and water without any one being put in danger.

The RMI can also be equipped with weapons in case things go south.

RMI.jpg
 
There was absolutely no more need to have additional officers or innocents slain by this thug. I thank them for ending it right then and there as opposed to having to spend literally millions of dollars to prosecute him and then keep his sorry hide alive for 40 years.


The United States of America is supposed to operate under the rule of law, not the law of the jungle.
Justice is to administered in a courtroom, and that's what separates us from the savages.

While I understand your emotions, there is no reason for the process to be circumvented. There's a name for a nation where judgement is rendered by the police: It's called a Police State. That, sadly, is where we are headed. This is just one example out of thousands.


Willie

.
 
Justice is to administered in a courtroom, and that's what separates us from the savages.
Click to expand...
Thank you for beating me to it.

We have never, and should never, delegate the authority to conduct summary executions to law enforcement. That said, the details are still sparse and sometimes contradictory. We don't know the whole story yet.

However, any more bloodlust posts (or any suggesting someone got what "they deserve") will lead to closure of this thread.
 
Look down right in front of your feet folks, that thing you see is the slippery slope.
" As long as they are a bad enough person we should just kill them, no trial needed" sounds good initially, but the longer you think about it the more it should chill you deep inside.
Trials happen for a good reason. It won't happen in this case now, he's dead. Some hearings maybe, no trial. No determination by "a jury of his peers" , just news reports, and I'll bet we all feel the same way about the trusting the news media.
If someone tomorrow convinces enough people in law enforcement that you're
responsible for killing LE officers will it be okay that they kill you without due process?
EDIT I'm sure it wouldn't take too long to find cases where people were mis-labeled as a"cop killer" so I don't really want to hear about "tinfoil hat's" etc.
 
Depends.. am I an active shooter? Due process is always the goal, but we can't be any more absolute there than we possibly can.
 
BTW, if you did this in Afghanastan you would be a war criminal and would very likely be charged under the UCMJ and put away for a very very very long time.....
Click to expand...


Is this really true or up for interpretation?
 
"Depends.. am I an active shooter? Due process is always the goal, but we can't be any more absolute there than we possibly can."
Now that's a good question.
This case might actually be the poster boy for that too.
The people in the houses and vehicles the LE guys shot up a few days ago might very well have returned fire, thinking they were being attacked by criminals, and probably been within their legal rights.
At that point wouldn't they have fit your definition of an active shooter?
It's a troubling question, if i'm innocent, I'm fired on by the police first, and the only way to survive is to return fire, what do I do?
 
scrubcedar, that's a question of state law. I know that in Arkansas, it's unlawful to resist arrest, even if the arrest itself is unlawful.
 
Thanks Spats. The problem is that throughout this whole thing the police don't seem to have been waiting to respond to the threat, they've been the aggressors instead. What are the rules when it comes to that? Did they violate them whatever they are?
 
scrubcedar said:
Thanks Spats. The problem is that throughout this whole thing the police don't seem to have been waiting to respond to the threat, they've been the aggressors instead. What are the rules when it comes to that? Did they violate them whatever they are?
Click to expand...
Those questions are much more easily asked than answered. To answer those questions, I would need a great deal of information that does not appear to be available yet.

The simple answer, on a federal level, is "that depends on whether the search or seizure was reasonable." The more complex, and realistic answer: Even once I get the information (if I ever do), I'd need to research all of the applicable state laws, state rules of criminal procedure, and then square it all against a few federal constitutional amendments to see if "the rules were violated."
 
What agency is responsible to check if the police broke any laws? Would the agencies involved be checking on themselves?

Also, would Dorner's family have much of a chance suing whichever agency started the fire in civil court? (assuming some law agency did start the fire) which like many here have said, who knows exactly what happened.
 
State police or FBI might look into whether police broke the laws. As for the civil suit, virtually every agency and every officer involved, and then a few extra for good measure, can expect to be named in a civil rights suit by Mr. Dorner's estate. Whether that suit stands any chance of winning is an entirely and, at this juncture, unanswerable, question.
 
If law enforcement were firing on him en masse, could Dorner have realistically been able to return fire? I don't see how that was possible for Dorner from the cover of a house. Law enforcement executed him. Dorner was probably a monster but law enforcement reaction in pursuit (shooting innocent civilians) and apprehension of him was lawless and more troubling than Dorners crime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top