The weapon of choice employed again?

Status
Not open for further replies.
State police or FBI might look into whether police broke the laws.



"Might", but won't.



"There were so many of us'

"We were doing what we were ordered to do"

"I just do as I'm told"

"Im not sure who was in charge"




All responsibility is diffused so far that "nobody" is really responsible any more.


And... nobody in a position to investigate really cares. Think that the FBI cares? They never put Lon Horiuchi in prison for shooting the face off of an unarmed woman who was not in a position to harm anyone... they sent him to Waco so he could shoot more people. The bottom line... hate to say it... is that there is no adult supervision of law enforcement that has any credibility any longer. The police get the result they want, and there's nothing at all legally available to stop it.



Willie

.
 
And... nobody in a position to investigate really cares. Think that the FBI cares? They never put Lon Horiuchi in prison for shooting the face off of an unarmed woman who was not in a position to harm anyone... they sent him to Waco so he could shoot more people. The bottom line... hate to say it... is that there is no adult supervision of law enforcement that has any credibility any longer. The police get the result they want, and there's nothing at all legally available to stop it.
Click to expand...


What's the solution? Or more to the point what would you suggest I do if I agree with you?
 
Willie, I only use the term "might" because I do not know exactly what agencies were involved, nor what the state law of the locale says the proper procedure. If state law enforcement won't look into whether laws were broken, I'm sure an industrious plaintiff's attorney will be glad to help them take a look.
 
For the most part this is all just a discussion we already know the answer to.
If you are a cop killer a ice cream cone in the desert in the sun has more chances of reaching a jail cell alive than you do. This guy killed multiple cops
Not in the course of a firefight or arrest but publicly and openly declaring hunting season on them.

He was dead from the first cop he killed, only he was a bit much to handle in the usual way of just shooting him because he was better at killing than they were.
Guy probably was railroaded by his dept. But he was a nut and have no sympathy for him. Killing his lawyers daughter would have taken care of that if I had ever had any in the first place. Which I didnt.

That said he made fools of LAPD, scared them to wetting their pants and shooting civilians, exposed some dirty little not so secret secrets and embarrassed them. Then he killed some of them.

Of course they burned him out. Its plain as day on the tapes. Heck if they didnt get him quick he probably would have slipped out of there as well.

What LE did was wrong as Waco was wrong but I given that one man had a kill ratio of what at that point 4 to 0 in his favor with guns did anyone really expect anything different than burning him out??? I dont condem LE for doing it on the level that as crazy as this sounds they were over matched and were not going to lose any more officers trying to prove they werent.
 
An interesting point was raised elsewhere - they said they found his wallet with Calid DL that miraculously survived the fire...but they already found his wallet when he tried to escape to Mexico...
Not tinfoil hatting, just two points that don't add up.
I agree wholeheartedly - police cannot be judge/jury/executioner, as much as our popular media try to make it so - how many cop movies have the cop trying to get the bad guy to PRISON? I think one Charles Bronson flick had the bad guy delivered to prison where he found out life was about to get really bad, but most end up being judge, jury and executioner. Now while popular media has zippo to do with real life, many watching the news are indeed conditioned by these same movies to cheer the cops when they end something this way, without critical thinking that other means and ways would have been preferable to maintain the rule of law - the rule of law makes for a terrible movie.
 
I think we can probably trust that if they were not sure it was Dorner we would know because they would want everybody and their grandmother looking for him regardless if they did burn up the wrong person. Self preservation ya know.
 
I do not know what the guidelines for offensive response are in a shootout. How would those guidelines change for a variable such as an RPG or IED devices? If they are using small arms, are police only allowed to respond with small arms? I think we can reason out any hostages inside. Since smokes were popped and LE was firing, I'm sure someone had IR gear and could confirm the number of occupants. If that's NOT what happened, I'd honestly be surprised (and I very well could be when/if it comes out that I'm wrong). I thought that I had the opinion that the police reacted poorly, but after asking myself these questions I really don't know what to think. I'm sure they were terrified and it seemed like the right thing to do at the time.
 
I'm sure fire as a weapon agains the barricaded person has been the weapon of choice for over 100 years. I find it distrurbing however that in the case of WACO with women and children inside tear gas was deployed and it sarted a fire. The police said, "we didn't start a fire" duh... It seems like this is a pattern where tear gas is deployed and has the "benefit" of starting a fire with deniability.
 
I disagree with the use of fire, but if I had been in charge of the operation and had already lost an officer and had another wounded, there is no way I would have risked more officers just to make sure he got "every chance" to surrender. I would have ordered snipers to take him down at the first opportunity.

I'm not sure where anyone has gotten the idea that we should spend massive amounts of money to make sure we don't hurt the killer when we get him holed up somewhere. Starving him out could have taken weeks or months and would have risked lives unnecessarily.
 
Ben Towe, this goes back to an earlier point - without approaching in some means, either by negotiator (unlikely due to risk) or remote means (robot; dog with harness mounted camera; etc) they could not KNOW that there was no hostage in the cabin.

Without absolutely knowing that, they should have acted as though there were hostages. That rules out burning down the cabin.

In a thread on GD, it was pointed out that they also ran a very real risk of starting an uncontained forest fire.

These are big deals. People are making very light of things they should take very seriously.

Just because it worked out ok, this time, does not mean that this is a tactic we should see employed again. Everybody who gives this incident their tacit approval, will have to shoulder some of the responsibility if this happens again, and if it results in loss of innocent life.
 
Without absolutely knowing that, they should have acted as though there were hostages. That rules out burning down the cabin.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree MLeake, certainly burning it down was stupidly irresponsible, even cruel. I was addressing the undertone I'm feeling here that "police forces shouldn't have used any lethal force at all to prevent them from being judge, jury, and executioner."

FYI, it's very possible that they used thermal imaging equipment mounted on a helicopter to determine the number of people in the cabin... Regardless, burning it down was not brilliant by any means.
 
Ben Towe, having worked with the MX-15, MX-20, and MTS-A families of aerial thermal imaging sensors, I have to disagree with you. They are good, but they have limitations.
 
Last edited:
The morning news had a interview the local sheriff.

1. Burners refer to tear gas grenades that have flames coming out of the back when fired as a propulsive side effect.

2. Yelling about burners refers to firing such.

3. They do set things on fire.

He was shooting at them. Should you be limited in the magnitude of response when someone is shooting at you?

Isn't that different from being passively waiting?
 
1. Burners refer to tear gas grenades that have flames coming out of the back when fired as a propulsive side effect.
Click to expand...

It is idiotic to call something a burner if it is used in such a way that it can set houses on fire accidentally.

It's like an alcoholic calling liquor crash and burn juice, then sluffing it off as just a innocent phrase when he kills someone.
 
^^

Indeed. Why not just call in a few of my friends flying Hornets up at China Lake and have them just roll-in for a pass and drop a Mark-82 on the place? Heck, Edwards AFB is within line of sight view of Big Bear. Sortie a B-1 from South Base and laze it and drop.

The difference is that US Naval Officers and USAF Officers are knowlagable about what to do when issued illegal orders. Local law enforcement... not so much.

This is not to excuse the criminal. BTW. It is just that WE and our agents whom WE employ as our protectors, ought to well above criminal acts, no matter the reason. The ends do not justify the means.

My contempt for these "officers of the law" is complete.

Willie

.
 
It is not like there is no history of these units causing fires when deployed.

This from the L.A. Times.

SOURCE

Dorner manhunt: Cabin not intentionally set on fire, sheriff says
February 13, 2013 | 4:37 pm

"We did not intentionally burn down that cabin to get Mr. Dorner out," Sheriff John McMahon told reporters at a news conference.

[Updated, 4:53 p.m. Feb. 13: He said that deputies fired conventional tear gas into the cabin and then used incendiary gas on the structure, which was first reported Wednesday by The Times. The cabin burned to the ground. Dorner is believed to have died inside.]
Click to expand...

So what part of "incendiary" do they not understand?

in·cen·di·ar·y
[in-sen-dee-er-ee] plural in·cen·di·ar·ies.
adjective
1. used or adapted for setting property on fire: incendiary bombs.
2. of or pertaining to the criminal setting on fire of property.
3. tending to arouse strife, sedition, etc.; inflammatory: incendiary speeches.
4. tending to inflame the senses: an incendiary extravaganza of music and dance.
noun
5. a person who deliberately sets fire to buildings or other property, as an arsonist.
6. Military . a shell, bomb, or grenade containing napalm, thermite, or some other substance that burns with an intense heat.
7. a person who stirs up strife, sedition, etc.; an agitator.
Click to expand...
 
" I was addressing the undertone I'm feeling here that "police forces shouldn't have used any lethal force at all to prevent them from being judge, jury, and executioner."

I don't think that anyone is finding the legal killing of someone as reprehensible. It has been MANY years, however, I remember learning levels of control. For instance, if someone used an open hand, you would use a fist. If someone used a "soft" weapon, (a misnomer is you ask me) you would use a "hard weapon (ie. justifies using lethal force)." I can easily control where I point my rifle or throw a fist. How can the police control a fire??? As was mentioned earlier, this fire could easily have gotten out of hand. Additionally, at any point in time, this killer could have seen the futility of his situation and surrendered. Granted, this was far from likely but still a definite possibility. As the saying goes, not impossible, just improbable. By the police setting fire to this structure, they started a lethal force that was far out of their control and, in my opinion, not a legal choice for these officers to make. What if this scumbag was trying to surrender and found his exit barred by the fire?
Lastly, does anyone know why the LAPD was in Big Bear?? I mean, it is a little far out of their jurisdiction isn't it? Would they be the ones to respond to a situation of similar significance?
 
Obviously at least one officer figured this was going to be the result."The police can be heard yelling "Burn that <distorted> out!"".
The audio is pretty clear. No one says"gas him out" or"tear gas him" or anything else along those lines.
The other audio recording concerns me a little as some of the things said don't seem to apply to the facts as we know them.
Assuming that it is accurate however, listen to the audio itself at one point they deliberately get very cagey about" go forward with the plan with the burner, I want it, uh,(pause) like we talked about."
Maybe they didn't want the suspect to know what they were doing,but,listen to the audio and it's pretty clear that the officer isn't at all surprised that "seven burners deployed" caused a fire. This is the same officer that pauses while speaking in almost every other sentence but doesn't pause at all between "seven burners deployed and""we have a fire".
 
He definitely stated "seven burners deployed and we have a fire". It was a contiguous sentence. He did not say "seven burners deployed and ... oh, oh ... we have a fire".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top