If I was a large black man in Big Bear I would be laying low for the rest of the day. I can imagine there are amped up LEOs coming up the hill in droves!
The retards on KCBS have variously reported the site as being Angelus Oaks, Jenks Rd E, and Glass Rd which covers an area of about 5 miles. It seems to actually be Glass Rd now.
Let's see how this 2nd Amendment fight against government Tyranny turns out for him.
About as well as it would have in the late 18th century, no better or worse. Sorry, but if your "point" is changed circumstances, it's pretty lame, he used a gun to kill some folks and will probably be killed with a gun, same as it's been for hundreds of years.
Doubt the cops will drop a nuke on him or whatever people think makes the 2nd Amendment obsolete.
The local station here, KUSI, was interviewing a lady who's family used to own the cabin. At the end of the interview they asked her what her personal feelings were, her answer "I am sorry that they pushed him to the point that he had to do this". Not the answer they wanted to hear!
He mentioned he was devastated because th LAPD had ruined his name, and he said a man's name is all he has. His solution was to become to become a murderer.
That should restore his reputation. Oy.
The planet seems to function fine. What's up with the people?
Bitterness, Retaliation......ruins so many lives. Had Friends in East LA. Gave their lives trying to make people see that B&R only destroys....from both sides of the coin.
Prayers of Peace for all the dead and wounded and their loved ones....on both side of the coin. lynne
Journalist, I want you to investigate every location I resided in growing up. Find any incidents where I was ever accused of being a bully. You won’t, because it doesn’t exist. It’s not in my DNA. Never was.
I lived a good life and though not a religious man I always stuck to my own personal code of ethics, ethos and always stuck to my shoreline and true North. I didn’t need the US Navy to instill Honor, Courage, and Commitment in me but I thank them for re-enforcing it. It’s in my DNA.
Perhaps an investigator overlooked something at Mr Dorners psychological evaluation.
The LAPD shouldn't be giving guns and badges to individuals who believe behavioral strengths and ethical conduct are in their DNA.
These guys are at least TEN MILES from where anything is actually happenning ( note the lack of snow on the ground ) manning a roadblock at Hwy 38 and Bryant.
Why they feel the need to carry rifles is beyond me ( besides the Brokeback Mountain motif ). Where they are, their most seriuos confrontation will be from the lady who wants to get home to Forest Falls to feed her cats.
Nobody can touch a body until the coroner shows up. In this county, that may take quite a while. I could drive up there in twenty-five minutes, but the coroner won't show up until sometime tomorrow.
climbski2, it all stinks like a rotten potato. I don't believe anything that's being feed to the news. We may never know what really went on here from beginning to end.
Learned from experience there is way more below ground than what you see above.
Edit: yo ST comments ...... jezzz you guys are (sometimes) better than Saturday Night Live.
Waco, another one of those who can you believe probably not the government situations.
My best friend jesus just asked us humankind to love each other. So I guess it's better to ignore his advice and live like what we've witnessed here. Oh yeah.
Chief Beck had stated that he would reopen the investigation that caused the guy to go bonkers.....mainly to assure the african american community that there was actually no racism involved, inasmuch as the perp so alleged.
That was wise of the Chief to do.
But there is a bigger issue.
Ron posted online here that he had talked to LAPD buddies, who told him that all the LAPD cops had decided that they would not take him alive.
In my book, that is conspiracy to commit murder. That is a separate crime from actual murder.
By engaging in that conversation, did Ron become a part of that conspiracy?
Certainly, by not reporting the conspiracy to authorities, he was morally a part of the conspiracy.
The concept that our police engages in conspiracies to commit murder, is sort of a big thing in my book. I also notice that no one finds this a stretch.
By the way, I remember reading that the most common reason for arson, is to
cover up another crime. This after the police asking for all media recording to stop. It makes you wonder.
(1) Anyone here reminded of LA Confidential?
(2) Anyone here read the transcript? I read half of it last night. Pretty thought and feeling provoking. Insofar as you're inclined to believe him, it's pretty sad.
I hope a host of investigative journalists dig into this.
Dingus, you are not the climber holed up at Donnell's standing off the Tuolumne County sheriffs, are you? Oh, my mistake, Big Bear is in southern California. ;-)
High Fructose, I have read several different (though similar) transcripts of Dorner's manifesto.
He may have made some good points, but shooting innocent people is NOT a good point.
On the one hand it does look a little like the San Bernardino County Sheriffs might have decided to torch the place with him in it. But, LAPD or any other cops saying they're not going to take the guy alive is a far cry from conspiracy to murder. If the cops were convinced, by his actions, that Dorner had every intention of shooting it out to the end, then it was a simple observation of what would likely be the outcome.
I'm always in favor of taking these types alive but that's not the usual outcome in a scene like this.
I can tell you this - insofar as the father purposefully shortchanged Dorner, he's feeling it today and he'll feel it the rest of his life. Taking out a family member is more effective - vengeance-wise - than taking out the corrupt perp who then wouldn't feel anything as he would be dead. Right?
It is almost like watching 'Django Unchained' in real life."
Truth be told, 100,000 years ago, if you cheated or told lies in your extended family or tribe, you were ostracized. Which often meant death. This is no longer the case today. Corrupt people (liars and cheats) get exposed today, what happens? They move to a different neighborhood or town. Their behavior continues. Unchecked. No penality or punishment. You kid yourselves, you pollyannish honest folks, you soft hearted folks, if you don't think norms that favor cheaters and liars aren't being propagated in our modern world. It is a predicament.
What happened? Dorner took revenge. In turn, the Leviathan took its tit for tat. Reminds me a bit of the rape and murder discussion (re: Morris's honest response) in the scene in the film, Ides of March.
Life lesson: Kids don't let your parents grow up to be liars and cheats. It might have blowback on the next generation.
I'm glad it's over. The shootout took place 3 miles from the camp where my son is with all his 5th grade classmates. All the parents around here were FREAKIN'!
They kept it from the kids, they are just far enough so that no one could hear the shooting and the science camp curriculum was uninterrupted, except for the lockdown.
I don't see much good to be had expending any effort to take this guy alive.
When a well coordinated competent police force has a guy ike this surrounded, trapped, why should they not just wait him out? If he kills himself that is out of their control and everyone can be free of guilt. Radio transcripts now reveal that the San Bernardino Sheriffs decided to start the burn. It was their plan. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, but whatever...
Terrorist wanted to die and take a bunch of folks with him
This is just backwards. The shooting at Ft. Hood is officially termed "workplace violence" - a decision which deprives the dead and survivors of Purple Heart medals, and the families and survivors of the benefits of being wounded in combat - all while the shooter chose as his targets a rooom full of troops en route to Afghanistan and yelled "Allah Ahkbar" as he commenced fire. That was terrorism. Dorner was no terrorist. That's workplace violence. Or just mayhem.
Audio from a Los Angeles television station captured the sound of someone early in the standoff shouting, "Burn it down ... burn that goddamn house down. Burn it down." It's not clear who used those words.
But the order to use smoke canisters -- "burners" -- didn't come for another two hours, according to San Bernardino County sheriff's radio traffic.
"Seven burners deployed, and we have a fire," one officer reported at 4:16 p.m. (7:16 p.m. ET).
He had many chances to surrender, and go to jail
He decided he would fight it out, and death was the only option in the end
All I'm sayin' is you can't learn much from dead man.
Of course the guy both deserved and begged to be killed. That is not my point. Once a suspect is trapped it is not the police's job to execute a sentence. Jeez, I thought you were the bleeding heart liberal here..;-)
All I'm sayin' is you can't learn much from dead man.
That's a good motive for the LAPD wanting him dead in addition to just getting revenge. I don't think they wanted him to be captured alive. The trial and jailhouse interviews would have been embarrassing.
Dorner may have had his own reasons for not being captured. He could have set the fire himself. That's what I thought in the beginning, but the more about this I read, the fire was started by police incendiary devices, and they expected it to burn.
I hope there is a full arson and forensic investigation by an independent agency, such as the FBI.
Police: can't live without them, can't live with them... especially if you have killed a cop or are a mentally ill homeless man in CA.
Burning him out is murder, end of story. I have no love for the guy that got killed, but last time I checked it took years to enact a death sentence. this guy got no due process. It is sad to see so few people give a f*#k about how this went down. most of american is to stupid to understand and to busy to care about how we are becoming a police state.
Update Feb. 13, 2013, 7:30 p.m.:
San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon said at a press conference Wednesday afternoon that the fire was not set on purpose. "We did not intentionally burn down that cabin to get Mr. Dorner out," McMahon said. However, McMahon said one type of tear gas used was "pyrotechnic" and acknowledged that it "does generate a lot of heat." McMahon said the fire "erupted" after police launched the pyrotechnic canisters, which are called "burners," into the cabin.
In the police audio, which was broadcast on CBS affiliate KCAL-TV on Tuesday, frantic voices of officers can be heard, including one officer apparently saying "Burn it down" or "Burn him out," while another officer appears to shout, "F*ing burn this motherf**r!"
The audio's veracity could not be confirmed.
Click the video above to hear the police audio from KCAL-TV.
In addition, a video that has surfaced on YouTube appears to include another recording of police audio from Tuesday's standoff. In the audio, which could not be independently confirmed, a voice says, "We're gonna go forward with the plan, with the burn ... Like we talked about."
A short while later a male voice says: "Seven burners deployed and we have a fire." A female voice then responds: "Copy. Seven burners deployed and we have a fire."
How Law Enforcement and Media Covered Up the Plan to Burn Christopher Dorner Alive
Max Blumenthal
February 13, 2013 |
At approximately 7 PM ET, I listened through a police scanner as San Bernadino Sheriffs gave the order to burn down the cabin where suspected murderer Christopher Dorner was allegedly hiding. Deputies were maneuvering a remote controlled demolition vehicle to the base of the cabin, using it to tear down the walls of the cabin where Dorner was hiding, and peering inside.
In an initial dispatch, a deputy reported seeing “blood spatter” inside the cabins. Dorner, who had just engaged in a firefight with deputies that killed one officer and wounded another, may have been wounded in the exchange. There was no sign of his presence, let alone his resistance, according to police dispatches.
It was then that the deputies decided to burn the cabin down.
“We’re gonna go ahead with the plan with the burner,” one sheriff’s deputy told another. “Like we talked about.” Minutes later, another deputy’s voice crackled across the radio: “The burner’s deployed and we have a fire.”
Next, a sheriff reported a “single shot” heard from inside the house. This was before the fire had penetrated deeply into the cabin’s interior, and may have signaled Dorner’s suicide. At that point, an experienced ex-cop like him would have known he was finished.
Over the course of the next hour, I listened as the sheriffs carefully managed the fire, ensuring that it burned the cabin thoroughly. Dorner, a former member of the LAPD who had accused his ex-colleagues of abuse and racism in a lengthy, detailed manifesto, was inside. The cops seemed to have little interest in taking him alive.
“Burn that f*#king house down!” shouted a deputy through a scanner transmission inadvertently broadcast [3] on the Los Angeles local news channel, KCAL 9. “F*#king burn this motherf*#ker!” another cop could be heard exclaiming.
While live ammo exploded inside the cabin, the deputies pondered whether the basement would burn as well – they wanted to know if its ceiling was made of wood or concrete. They assumed Dorner was hiding there, and apparently wanted to ensure that he would be burned to a crisp. “Because the fire is contained, I’m gonna let that heat burn through the basement,” a deputy declared.
SWAT teams airlifted to the location were told to be ready in case Dorner did manage to escape. “Guys be ready on the number four side [the front of the cabin],” a deputy declared. “He might come out the back.”
Just after 7 PM (10 PM PT), right when the orders were given to deploy the “burners,” the San Bernadino Country Sheriff’s Department Public Information Officer Cindy Bachman hastily gathered reporters for an impromptu press conference. Claiming to know nothing new, she told reporters that she had no idea why the cabin was on fire, or who started the fire. Reporters badgered Bachman for information, but she had none, raising the question of why the presser was convened when it was.
Around the same time, the San Bernadino County Sheriff’s Department requested that all reporters and media organizations stop tweeting about the ongoing standoff with Dorner, claiming their journalism was “hindering officer safety.” As the cabin sheltering Dorner burned, the local CBS affiliate was reportedly told by law enforcement to zoom its helicopter camera out to avoid showing the actions of sheriff’s deputies. By all accounts, the media acceded to police pressure for self-censorship.
On Twitter, the Riverside Press Enterprise, a leading local newspaper, announced [4] on Twitter, “Law enforcement asked media to stop tweeting about the#Dorner case, fearing officer safety. We are complying.” The paper’s editors added, [5] “We are going to tweet broad, non-tactical details, as per the San Bernardino DA's request.”
“Per [San Bernadino Country Sheriff’s Department] request,” tweeted [6] the local CBS affiliate, KCBS, “we are complying and will not tweet updates on #Dorner search.”
At the time that I am writing this, some online media outlets [7] are beginning to entertain the possibility that San Bernadino County Sheriff’s deliberately set the fire that killed Dorner – a fact that I reported on Twitter as soon the sheriff’s department order came down. If there is any doubt about the authenticity of the YouTube clip [8] containing audio of the sheriff deputies’ orders to burn the cabin down, I can verify that it is the real thing. I was listening to the same transmissions when they first blared across the police scanners.
In the hours after the standoff, however, the police cover-up remained unchallenged thanks largely to local media complicity. An initialLos Angeles Times report [9] recounted the incident in a passive voice, claiming “flames began to spread through the structure, and gunshots, probably set off by the fire, were heard.” Similarly, LA’s ABC affiliate, KABC, quoted [10] Bachman’s vague comment about “that cabin that caught fire,” failing to explore why it was aflame or who torched it.
Today, the Los Angeles Times reported [11] claims by anonymous “law enforcement sources” that the sheriffs used “incendiary tear gas” to flush Dorner out of the cabin. The sources claimed the deputies who had besieged the cabin were under a “constant barrage of gunfire” and that, “There weren’t a lot of options.”
This is almost certainly a lie. The only mention by a deputy at the scene of a gunshot from inside the cabin was the “single shot” that occurred as soon as the “burners,” or incendiary teargas munitions, were deployed. After that point, deputies made constant mention of ammunition exploding inside the cabin as a result of the intense heat of the fire they set, but said nothing about any shots fired at them.
If there were a “constant barrage of gunfire,” it would have been the main source of concern among the police at the scene. Instead, they were preoccupied with ensuring that the fire burned the cabin completely without spreading into the surrounding woods.
There is a grand tradition of law enforcement using incendiary devices to assault besieged suspects, and of covering up their use. One of the most famous examples of this tactic, and its horrible consequences, was the Philadelphia Police Department’s bombing [12] of the compound of the radical black nationalist cult, M.O.V.E., dropping C-4 explosives by helicopter on the house, killing [13] 11 members of the group, including 5 children, and destroying 65 homes in the West Philadelphia neighborhood.
It was not until the 51-day FBI siege of the Waco, Texas compound of the messianic Branch Davidian cult that “burners,” or incendiary 40mm military grade cartridges, were used to burn a structure down. Six years after claiming that the Branch Davidians deliberately burned their own compound down, the FBI finally admitted [14] that it used incendiary rounds, but insisted that none of them contributed to the fire that consumed the compound.
The “burners,” or pyrotechnic rounds the San Bernadino County Sheriffs used to torch Dorner’s cabin, are likely similar, and perhaps more powerful, than those employed by the FBI in Waco. Through the five-year-old “Department of Defense Excess Property Program,” [15] the US military has provided police departments across the country with billions of dollars worth of military equipment, from amphibious tanks to AR-15 assault rifles, allowing the military to circumvent Posse Comitatus regulations by outsourcing their firepower to local cops.
“Burners,” or military grade incendiary grenades, are very likely among the items passed down from the US army to local police outfits like the San Bernadino Sheriff’s Department.The “burner” of choice for the modern American soldier is the AN-M14 TH3. [16] It is a hand held grenade comprised of a thermite mixture that rapidly converts to molten iron when it is thrown, burning at a temperature of 4000 degrees Fahrenheit, hot enough to burn through a half inch steel plate or bring an engine block to a boil. It can also produce enough heat to set off unloaded ammunition, which would explain why the ammo inside Dorner’s hideout was popping.
If the San Bernadino Sheriffs employed the AN-M14 TH3 or something like it against Dorner – and it appears they did – they have good reason to attempt to cover their actions up. Without even a token attempt to establish communication with the suspect, who was, to be sure, a wanted killer hell-bent on murdering cops, they attacked him with what was likely a military grade weapon designed to destroy fortified structures. By burning Dorner alive, then misleading and deceiving the public about the operation, the sheriffs may have validated the rogue ex-cop’s sharpest indictments of the culture of American law enforcement.
Yet no element in the Dorner drama was more disturbing than the performance of mainstream media. At every point, major news outlets complied with law enforcement calls for self-censorship, and still demonstrate little interest in determining how and why a lethal fire started on a snow-covered mountain in the dead of winter. As a quintessentially American tragedy reaches its denouement, the truth remains buried beneath a smoldering pile of ashes.
This is just backwards. The shooting at Ft. Hood is officially termed "workplace violence" - a decision which deprives the dead and survivors of Purple Heart medals, and the families and survivors of the benefits of being wounded in combat - all while the shooter chose as his targets a rooom full of troops en route to Afghanistan and yelled "Allah Ahkbar" as he commenced fire. That was terrorism. Dorner was no terrorist. That's workplace violence. Or just mayhem.
You seem to be sure of the definition of "terrorism."
Terrorism used to mean violence perpetrated against civilian targets with the intention of influencing political change through fear.
Today, for many, it means any crime committed by someone who is a Muslim.
Despite the controversy over the definition, it is really nonsensical to characterize any attack against uniformed military personnel as terrorism. Attempting to destroy an enemy army is just good ol' fashioned war.
The Fort Hood situation is complicated because the shooter was targeting American military personnel, but there is no clear evidence to support the idea that he was the "enemy" in our ambiguous "war" against "terror."
It may have been an act of war, it may have been an ordinary crime. It almost certainly was not terrorism (unless we go with the "all Muslims are terrorists" definition...)
"Allahu Akbar" is not a declaration of allegiance to any state or political organization. It is a religious phrase used in a variety of contexts. If the Fort Hood shooter had shouted "Praise Jesus" during the shootings, would he be labeled a terrorist?
If some soldier in Toledo woke up one day in 1943, decided that the US was unfairly persecuting Germany, and proceeded to shoot some other soldiers on a train, should the soldiers get Purple Hearts because they were wounded by "enemy action?"
If some soldier in Toledo woke up one day in 1943, decided that the US was unfairly persecuting Germany, and proceeded to shoot some other soldiers on a train, should the soldiers get Purple Hearts because they were wounded by "enemy action?
Uh, yeah. Unless I'm missing something (always possible, I'm certainly not a military lawyer), this one seems pretty simple.
The Ft. Hood solider and your hypothetical Toledo soldier were both guilty of the crime of treason, right? Seems pretty clear that soldiers who are victims of treason would get a Purple Heart as they are, by definition, wounded by enemy action.
I think some people may be overlooking the fact that the Ft. Hood attack was both an act of workplace violence and an act of war against the US.
From the good ol' US Constituion:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The LAPD has another motive for killing Dorner. Actually they have one million motives.
Above is video from this past weekend of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announcing a $1-million reward for information that led to the capture of Christopher Dorner, the ex-cop turned suspected cop killer who at that point had been on the run from authorities for about a week. Word of the seven-figure payout quickly became part of a story that was already dominating national news, helping to bring in more than 1,000 tips as to the fugitive's whereabouts in the process.
For all intents and purposes that manhunt ended on Tuesday, when the cabin Dorner was believed to be holed up in burned to the ground as it was surrounded by police. So who will get that money once the case is officially closed? Probably no one. Here's Villaraigosa's full-quote from that news conference, see if you can spot the giant loophole:
"Yesterday leaders from throughout the region, including leaders from businesses and unions, government, law enforcement and community groups, came together to pool resources and protect our core value of public safety. Collectively this group, led by my office, is posting a reward of $1 million for information that will lead to Mr. Dorner's capture."
Yep, thanks to some careful phrasing, it appears as though the city can hold on to its cash because Dorner wasn't technically "captured" before he died. The official story out of the mayor's office is that it's too early to say whether it will pay out the reward or not, but from the sounds of it a payout seems unlikely. As LAPD officer Alex Martinez bluntly told CBS News: "There was no capture and no conviction. It's kind of a no-brainer."
^ ^ ^
There is a body of law surrounding "rewards." They're sort of interesting unilateral contracts that are generally discussed in law school contracts classes, not because they're commercially important but to illustrate some concepts regarding offer, acceptance, and performance.
Despite the LA cop's statement that this is a "no-brainer," I think I'd feel pretty good about the case if I gave info that led to the cops locating Dorner and they refused to pay.
Such a person would be entitled to discovery as to the circumstances of Dorner's death. Do you think the LAPD would really want to go there, rather than just pay $1M (or a good fraction thereof in a settlement) of other people's money?
Uh, yeah. Unless I'm missing something (always possible, I'm certainly not a military lawyer), this one seems pretty simple.
The Ft. Hood solider and your hypothetical Toledo soldier were both guilty of the crime of treason, right? Seems pretty clear that soldiers who are victims of treason would get a Purple Heart as they are, by definition, wounded by enemy action.
I think some people may be overlooking the fact that the Ft. Hood attack was both an act of workplace violence and an act of war against the US.
So any American who kills a soldier has committed treason?
Was the Fort Hood guy "aiding the enemy," making a political statement, or just pissed at his co-workers?
I don't have the answers, but I'm sure it's not "pretty simple."
So any American who kills a soldier has committed treason?
Ummm, no. But any American who attacks a military base with the purpose of killing as many soldiers as possible--most likely yes. Treason is making war on the US:
e.g., killing a soldier because you're robbing him or are his pissed-off ex-wife--no
attacking a US military base--yes
Was the Fort Hood guy "aiding the enemy," making a political statement, or just pissed at his co-workers?
I don't have the answers, but I'm sure it's not "pretty simple."
We can't read his mind, but we can't read anyone else's mind either, and most serious crimes require proving some sort of intent on the part of the accused. Somehow we have millions of people in prison, who were all proved guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Intent is proved by conduct and the totality of the circumstances. From published news accounts of the shooter's conduct, both before and after the shooting, this one seems "pretty simple" to me.
If it doesn't to you, well, a jury acquitted OJ, what can you say. Some people just refuse to connect the dots, either out of ignorance, ulterior motives, whatever.
Maybe they were scared of getting killed by Chris Dorner so they tried to smoke him out of the house. It's easy to condemn their actions from behind the computer screen, but any of us in the same situation might act less than idealistically.
Those lubed up souls who stop short of endorsing Dorner’s killing spree,
but who ponder aloud whether society drove him to murder are not wacked!
Their musings bear a happy similarity to my own intelligent Left post-9/11 hand-wringing about the true muslim “root causes” of those attacks on America.
Seems to me they are a modern version of dragon, for some purposes. Of course they are people, too, and dangerous ones at that, but the gazillions of dollars we paid to save us from communists have been effectively redirected toward a much more reliable threat. 'Creating a dragon' is a phrase used in medical research to chastise funding proposals which raise the specter of a threat likely to be less dire than stated or entirely imaginary.
edit:
DMT sure cleared out fast.
sneaky non-bumping second edit:
Wow! I get to forgive DMT twice: once for posting and again for removing his post.
Since everyone was presumably wearing armor we can assume that guy could really shoot. Two people in armor and he got both. All the deputies knew that, very well.
They had to settle it before dark. Once it was dark they could assume he would fire in each of the four quadrants to learn their force distribution. Then he would throw out more smoke canisters and try under cover of darkness either to attack their strength or to penetrate the perimeter.
After all that has gone down, would you have chosen to play into that scenario?
EDIT for GC's comments below:
Dorner's use of smoke canisters was reported in the media coverage at the time so I took that at face value. I disregarded the possibility of the presence of thermal imaging equipment for the following reasons:
1. When the SWAT team was forming up no IR equipment was visible.
2. Extensive equipment for illuminating the scene was not apparent and the scene was not illuminated. Thereby raising questions as to how extensive the planning had been for night action - generally.
3. In the presence of very hot portions of the scene imaging is made difficult. Scattered and reflected IR can suppress and even affect the thermal variations in the scene that make imaging reliable.
4. In order to penetrate smoke, imaging equipment has to work in the LWIR( Long Wave Infrared) between 8 and 14 microns( a gap in the water absorption bands). So called Uncooled IR Technology in the LWIR that is readily man portable has been available for several years now but SBC's budget may well have been unable to support purchase of a lot of this equipment. And nothing was apparent. Most gun sight imaging for the commercial market has been in the Mid Wave passband. The conversion to uncooled in the LWIR has been recent.
The imaging task presented in this case was difficult because of the smoke and fire. But even had there been neither fire nor smoke canisters, not resolving the situation before loss of light would have introduced new risk and less assured event control.
Dorner was no terrorist. That's workplace violence. Or just mayhem.
Dorner was a domestic terrorist if anyone ever was. Using violence and the threat of violence for a political purpose.(see his manifesto) Vengence Murder of civilians, Targeting of government also .. asymetric warfare.
If it were my ass on the line I'd have wanted him dead as quickly and safely as possible. I'd have offered 1 chance to him to surrender and walk out alive. Then I would have quickly dropped any and all deadly force possible on his head.
........
A totally different issue is the longtime corruption in southern California police forces. Any and all infractions by police in this or any other case should come down hard on the officers involved. Hopefully the spotlight from this incident will ensure it does.
Since everyone was presumably wearing armor we can assume that guy could really shoot. Two people in armor and he got both. All the deputies knew that, very well.
They had to settle it before dark. Once it was dark they could assume he would fire in each of the four quadrants to learn their force distribution. Then he would throw out more smoke canisters and try under cover of darkness either to attack their strength or to penetrate the perimeter.
No.
The SWAT teams have military-grade night vision and infrared equipment. There was is no "cover of darkness" for Dorner.
Also, he probably did not have any such equipment, or even if he did it probably not be of the same quality. So no only is there "cover of darkness" for Dorner, but the SWAT team would have the advantage. They would be able to so. Dorner would probably be blind.
Also, SWAT's infrared equipment would work better at night then in the day, making it even harder for Dorner to escape.
It wasn't Dorner throwing the smoke canisters, it was the cops.
Don't forget that they were not just firing incendiary devices into the building. They were also simultaneously tearing it down with him in it.
They were using an armored demolition vehicle that let them drive right up to the building and start knocking down walls without any fear that Dorner could shoot them.
They undoubtedly had access to other armored vehicles as well.
As long as they gave him just one chance to surrender I'm good with dropping the walls in on him and firing the place. I wouldn't expect anyone to take one slight extra risk with that guy.. his being alive would be considered very real extra risk in this case.
This is another example of the American narrative.
Yeah, all involved really just wanted to go home at the conclusion of "bad guy got what he deserved"
From the Canadian bleachers, I can't resist in thinking that:
"Dang, but that varmint got smoked out by the sheriff, who laid down the law on his sorry ass " !
Sober up the hangin' judge, 'cause tomorrow's HANGIN' day... YEEHAWWW !
Everyone who is thinking bad guys deserve something better are like the people who my doctor friends laugh at. (in private) "They think medicine is light years away from leaches and drilling holes in people's heads" ...HAHAHHAH !
The cops don't come out of this loking good at all.
Nevermind Django's original grievance, which if true, makes the cops in L.A. look like low-rent gangsters. That was rendered moot the minute he pointed a gun at his first victim.
Dude was hiding out right under the cops' noses the whole time! He was holed up in a vacant condo about a hundred yards from the big police "command center" by Snow Summit. What was the point, again, of having a massive police presence up in Big Bear,staging a masive *search*, if they can't even check the house right across the street.
And those cops up in Ventura panicked, pissed themselves, and shot up not one, but TWO innocent vehicles. Thank God the cops' marksmanship is no better than their piss-poor judgement, or else someone would have been killed.
And what became of all the bullets fired at Dorner himself? What was in the sights of the cops' guns when they squeezed their triggers? All cops supposedly have to *qualify* on the target range to be allowed to carry a gun. Street shootings should count as a Pop Quiz toward their marksmanship qualification. A poor score on a street shooting - like under 50% hit - should mean they lose their gun.
I think they're all paid way too much. And this episode bears that out.
Nevermind Django's original grievance, which if true, makes the cops in L.A. look like low-rent gangsters. That was rendered moot the minute he pointed a gun at his first victim.
Not moot. Some mentally ill guy got kicked in the face. He's still around.
Also, the LAPD is still "tooling" any of its officers that blow the whistle on other cases. They did this before Dorner, and they're doing it now.
If everyone person the LAPD tooled acted like Dorner did, there wouldn't anyone left alive in LA.
Then again, between now and the end of year, the LAPD is going to kill more people in suspicious circumstances then Dorner killed.
Regarding the definition of terrorism I'll fall back to some old Judge's opinion on pornography; "I can't exactly define it but I know it when I see it..."
Dorner? Not a terrorist. Just a sociopathic murdering freak.
Ft Hood? Yes. And why the hell should a bunch of soldiers on their way to war, who get shot up by someone who openly professed many times to sympathize with the enemy, be deprived of purple heart medals and the benefits which come from being wounded in combat? Are we that small?
The Fort Hood crime is that the soldiers were training as a team in anticipation of a goal and did not expect one of their own to be all the way deadly, regardless of him being considered "weird". He can justifiably be considered an enemy "domestic".
The basic military induction isn't exactly where the sharpest people necessarily go. This guy rocked out to what the losers of his faith said and thought it made sense.
Regarding the definition of terrorism I'll fall back to some old Judge's opinion on pornography; "I can't exactly define it but I know it when I see it..."
So let's hear the expert opinion on the Boobs thread:
It's an old school fact of life that if you kill a cop, you too are going to die. It's the epitome of ignorance to think the cops would be careful to capture the cop killer without a scratch. That dude was doomed. Wonder what percentage of cop killers are actually captured?
I'd like to see the sheriff come out and say "Yeah, we burned down the building specifically intending to kill the guy inside. We were firing bullets into the building hoping to accomplish the same thing. We figured fire would be much more effective."
But seeing the stupid fool lie during his press confrences makes me lose all respect for him, and for the department he heads. He thinks we're stupid.
It's an old school fact of life that if you kill a cop, you too are going to die. It's the epitome of ignorance to think the cops would be careful to capture the cop killer without a scratch. That dude was doomed. Wonder what percentage of cop killers are actually captured?
Translation: Cops will murder with impunity when they want to.
Jim, I don't think you know what logic is. That's OK. You don't really need it. So long as you can cut a board straight and hammer on the nail, that's all you need to know. Carry on.
"Translation: Cops will murder with impunity when they want to."
So will everybody else.
That's why we have a police force, to keep those who have been victimized from taking retribution into their hands. A measure of separation is never a bad thing between two emotional foes.
If I found out who stole my last rack, or my last bicycle ( or any of my other bikes stolen previously ), or my last crop of avocados, I'd like nothing more than to burn down the mother f*#ker's house with him inside ( and shoot the bastard if he tries to leave ). That would please me very much.
But we can't have that and have a society at the same time.
What do we do when the cops are the victims? How do we put that sanity buffer between cops and someone who has a beef with cops?
If I found out who stole my last rack, or my last bicycle ( or any of my other bikes stolen previously ), or my last crop of avocados, I'd like nothing more than to burn down the mother f*#ker's house with him inside ( and shoot the bastard if he tries to leave ). That would please me very much.
I get angry just like everyone else.
But I've never wanted to kill someone for sealing anything.
Also, feeling like you would like to kill someone and actually doing it are two different things.
If we actually killed anytime we wanted to and could get away with it, there wouldn't be too many people left. Most people are able to show self-restraint, and we should expect the same of cops.
It used to be culturally accepted that anyone suspected of a crime like murder could be lynched. We dont' have that anymore, but we still have a culture of acceptance when it comes to cops killing suspected co-killers.
It's really just another form of lynching. Many of the victims are probably guilty and "deserve" to die, but without a trial we'll never know for sure.
It's an old school fact of life that if you kill a cop, you too are going to die. It's the epitome of ignorance to think the cops would be careful to capture the cop killer without a scratch. That dude was doomed. Wonder what percentage of cop killers are actually captured?
JL
The problem with this, is that it is not always so clear.
How many cases do we see, where the cops kill someone "because we thought he had a gun and was threatening us".....and no gun is found?
Or a gun is found, but it is a throw-away that has been planted?
the problem is, that when we accept routine conspiracy to murder as being an acceptable operating method, we have lost control of due process.
GC, In case you didn't notice, This guy ran around town shooting dead the offspring of those he meant to kill but hadn't the ability to follow through on the ones he wanted.
That's emotional thinking.
He then while in flight shot dead a peace officer and grievously wounded an other. Then he holed up in a cabin that was luckily uninhabited and refused to surrender.
Where does your take on civil liberties concerning the civil, cross paths with the public good in face of an incorrigible sociopath ?
This guy thought he had morality and some social conscience on his side but he didn't think it worth asking someone or anyone what was ethical.
GC, In case you didn't notice, This guy ran around town shooting dead the offspring of those he meant to kill but hadn't the ability to follow through on the ones he wanted.
That's emotional thinking.
He then while in flight shot dead a peace officer and grievously wounded an other. Then he holed up in a cabin that was luckily uninhabited and refused to surrender.
Where does your take on civil liberties concerning the civil, cross paths with the public good in face of an incorrigible sociopath ?
This guy thought he had morality and social conscience on his side but he didn't think it worth asking someone or anyone what was ethical.
Yes, you're engaging in emotional, irrational thinking.
No one is defending what Dorner is alleged to have done. If he did what they claim he did, he is a homicidal maniac. Also, I have no reason to think that he didn't do what the claim.
If I were a cop, and a lot of people tell me, that you, Jim Brennan, are an "incorrigible sociopath" does that give me the right to kill you?
Do you believe that the the accused always guilty and not deserving of a trial?
The police believed that Dorner was targeting police and their families. This could make it very difficult for them to think rationally.
If you're ACCUSED of murder, would you want the family of the murder victim to have the ability to hunt you down and kill you without any trial?
Jim Brennan claims that its illogical and emotional thinking to support civil liberties. He seems to think that anyone accused of being an "incorrigible sociopath" should be killed on sight and withotu a trial.
GC once again takes a point beyond logic, into emotion to a place where reality is something involving feelings.
GC, In case you didn't notice, This guy ran around town shooting dead the offspring of those he meant to kill but hadn't the ability to follow through on the ones he wanted.
That's emotional thinking.
He then while in flight shot dead a peace officer and grievously wounded an other. Then he holed up in a cabin that was luckily uninhabited and refused to surrender.
Where does your take on civil liberties concerning the civil, cross paths with the public good in face of an incorrigible sociopath ?
This guy thought he had morality and some social conscience on his side but he didn't think it worth asking someone or anyone what was ethical.
I ask if Jim Brennan would want his same lack of logic applied to him:
No one is defending what Dorner is alleged to have done. If he did what they claim he did, he is a homicidal maniac. Also, I have no reason to think that he didn't do what the claim.
If I were a cop, and a lot of people tell me, that you, Jim Brennan, are an "incorrigible sociopath" does that give me the right to kill you?
Do you believe that the the accused always guilty and not deserving of a trial?
The police believed that Dorner was targeting police and their families. This could make it very difficult for them to think rationally.
If you're ACCUSED of murder, would you want the family of the murder victim to have the ability to hunt you down and kill you without any trial?
Jim Brennan can't read.
Jim Brennan can't think.
Jim Brennan can't control himself.
So you think I'm a sociopath ?
You should make your case and be willing to take it to open court.
Otherwise you have just made yourself open to a libel suit as befitting someone who thought printing an opinion casually equals free speech.
Go F*#k Your Self,Douche...
No Jim Brennan. I did not say you were a sociopath. I didn't even say that I THINK that.
Jim, I don't need to say that you don't know how to read, because you just proved that.
If you hadn't , I'd ask you to go back and re-read what I wrote and try to understand it. But I won't ask you to do that, because you are not able to do that.
But even if I did believe that Jim Brennan was an incorrigible sociopath (which I don't) I'd still support his right to protection under the same civil liberties which he apparently does not believe in and apparently does not believe anyone he hears is an incorrigible sociopath should be able to enjoy.
"if I were a cop,and a lot of people tell me,that you, Jim Brennan,are "an incorrigible psychopath" does not give me the right to kill you?
You will not get off for a misplaced emotional comment for that.
You are now accountable for your statement. You have posted this publicly and are now responsible for your statement.
If you are going to try to quote me, please try to get it right. How hard is to to cut and paste? Don't try to re-type it. You'll just f*#k it up, just like you already did.
Try again.
And then answer the question, does it? Obviously not.
But if I were to substitute in "Christopher Dorner" for "Jim Brennan" you'd have a different answer.
I think that one rule should apply to everyone, whether it is Jim Brennan, Christopher Dorner, the Governor, the President, the Pope, or myself: Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
What I posted has nothing to do with the unfortunate C. Dorner personally.
What I posted has everything to do with you ("Granite Climber")personally as you have decided to libel me on a public forum. I post under my real name and you post as an avatar to conceal your true identity.
You are a person who hides behind a group of letters. That is not comfort enough. I will pursue satisfaction to what you have posted.
Let's say the cops did intentionally set fire to the cabin in order to either flush Dorner out or, if he chose not to come out, burn him up.
What's wrong with that?
Remember the cops were already using deadly force against him by shooting at him while he was in the cabin. The fire was just more effective deadly force.
Seems to me that once a cop is legally using deadly force, they can use whatever it most effective.
My guess is that is in fact what happened, and the cops are somewhat lying about it on general principle.
Edit:
I just read GC's link, wherein one commentator made the same point I wrote above. So my post is kind of redundant:
"What difference does it make if one of the officers puts a … round in his head, drives the armored vehicle over his body when they are knocking the building down, or he dies in a conflagration?" said David Klinger, a use-of-force expert at the University of Missouri at St. Louis and a former LAPD officer. "If he is trying to surrender you can't do any of those things … But if he is actively trying to murder people, there's no doubt that deadly force is appropriate and it doesn't matter what method is used to deliver it."
With a fire, at least the guy had a chance to come out. If they blew him out with mortar fire or whatever, no chance. He still had a choice till the end to fly the white flag, which is what he should have done, and then told his story. I doubt they would have let him come out alive though it seems.
nothing new with LEOs burning out perps. They blew up a dwelling they thought Claud Dallas was in, but he had never even been there.
Now knowing the perp here, and his experience and training, which of you would have bravely penetrated the cabin after him? Knowing his level of commitment and knowing he was well armed.?? Its really easy to critique from the safety of a keyboard. This wasnt Iraq where you had to enter a dwelling and SORT the good guys from the bad.
Am i defending the actions entirely, no. BUT,,which one of you would have volunteered for "point" on the entry??
It is a fact that the longer a standoff goes the more likely the person holed up will surrender. Cops are a lot more patient in other situations. They could have tried waiting the guy out with zero risk to anyone. Obviously they had very little patience, and in a matter of hours burned the guy out. They knew the cabin would go up in flames, come on, a 1927 wood cabin and 7 incendiary devices? Was it wrong to do that? I find it morally wrong, and unprofessional. Maybe they can live with that choice but I would prefer not to have people who prefer to kill in positions of authority.
I think the fact that Dorner fired shots from the house gives the cops the authority to use deadly force against him. Although I agree the cops likely had no interest in applying proper due process, Dorner's actions at the house narrowed the cops' alternatives considerably.
But how did the cops know that there was not someone else in the house?
Dorner had already taken a hostage that day, it was possible that he had others in there with him.
I think the fact that Dorner fired shots from the house gives the cops the authority to use deadly force against him. Although I agree the cops likely had no interest in applying proper due process, Dorner's actions at the house narrowed the cops' alternatives considerably.
I think what a lot of people are missing is that he SHOT AND KILLED A DEPUTY FROM THAT CABIN, and shot and injured another. WTF do you want the cops to do at that point? Sing Kumbaya? If any of you had even casually skimmed Dorner's manifesto it was quite clear that there was no way in hell he was going to be taken alive. He was actively shooting it out till the very end. The lunatic had earlier stalked and killed the daughter of his former supervisor and her fiancé. I was thinking let the fućker roast, and wished him a speedy trip to hell.
But how did the cops know that there was not someone else in the house?
CNN had the son of the woman who owned the cabin on the phone, and he confirmed that the cabin was empty. Furthermore, I would suspect SWAT has some fairly sophisticated surveillance techniques. They're knott likely to tear-gas/set-afire/bulldoze a building with innocents inside (with the world watching on live TV).
Edit:
I just read GC's link, wherein one commentator made the same point I wrote above. So my post is kind of redundant:
"What difference does it make if one of the officers puts a … round in his head, drives the armored vehicle over his body when they are knocking the building down, or he dies in a conflagration?" said David Klinger, a use-of-force expert at the University of Missouri at St. Louis and a former LAPD officer. "If he is trying to surrender you can't do any of those things … But if he is actively trying to murder people, there's no doubt that deadly force is appropriate and it doesn't matter what method is used to deliver it."
That is a good argument.
If he was still shooting at them, if he was being given the opportunity to surrender and was refusing, they are able to shoot back.
But since there were no hostages at risk, and they were able to drive around the building in a armored vehicle without risk, I suspect that they could have made more efforts to take him alive, if they had wanted to.
Killing people without a trial should be something that "good guys" do only if there is no other choice.
If we were able to land men on the moon over 40 years go (assuming it wasn't faked, LOL), I wouldn't be surprised if SWAT has the means in this day and age to determine whether they have a hostage situation or knott. And as I recall, he ran to the cabin during a shootout with Fish and Game officers; he never left their sight, and there wasn't an opportunity to grab a hostage even if he wanted to. Besides, he clearly didn't want to harm civilians (who weren't connected to law enforcement).
Also, I implied above that the LAPD was behind this. I was wrong. They were in San Bernardino County and the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department was in control.
I doubt there is any technology that can reliably confirm that there is only a single living human in a house.
And if such technology did exist, I doubt that a city police force would have it readily at hand.
This wasn't just a city police force. This was the Sheriff's Department of a major metropolitan county working with lots of other agencies. They had been focusing on the Big Bear Area for days and had a lot of pre-positioned resources available, including helicopters and armored vehicles. They had multiple SWAT teams, including an FBI SWAT team. They would have the very latest sensory equipment.
, he clearly didn't want to harm civilians (who weren't connected to law enforcement).
He kept people prisoners in the house he was hiding out, but then didn't take hostages with him when he left, and didn't take hostages when he carjacked two cars. He told the drivers he didn't want to hurt them and told them to walk away.
But the same guy started by killing two innocent civilians.
He killed four people in all and wounded three others. NONE of the people he killed or wounded had anything to do with his getting fired. None of them were on his target list.
I don't understand why there are people who think he is a hero.
I still think the goal should have been to capture him alive and put him on trial.
If we were able to land men on the moon over 40 years go ...
Then we should have flying cars and x-ray vision by now...
This the state of things today, right?
I spent a few years as an engineer developing military imagery systems. I cannot claim to know everything that's out there, but I know there is nothing that can see through walls well enough to confirm there absolutely nobody in an entire house. (And if anything with that capability did exist, it sure wouldn't be in a police, or even FBI, toolkit...)
The cops made an educated guess that nobody else was in the house. It was a correct guess, but it was just a guess.
I can only think back to an incident in Woodfords, on the Reservation, when i had to encounter a certain well known Indian family- one who had often exhibited violent tenancies to recover stolen logs from a commercial log deck( truck loads) and make the cite. I had members of the CHP and Alpine County Sheriffs there- all armed to the teeth and ready for the worst. I can tell you NO one was in a hurry to even get into the immediate area of the premises, let alone the dwelling. Putting yourself at risk in these more "normal" scenarios is a HELL of a lot easier than approaching one who knows your every move, and is as good if not better at it than you, and has already demonstrated that. So i can see why the tactics were used. Waiting him out would have resulted in another one or two officers down with the same end results.
I can also see the frustrations felt by him. Some will label him a hero, others a traitor that turned on his own, and some just a madman with guns.
Perhaps he is all three.
the problem is, that when we accept routine conspiracy to murder as being an acceptable operating method, we have lost control of due process.
The problem with this is that the person is meeting the conflict at a different level than the conflict itself, which in the real world is where both the perp and the cops meet up.
It's a simple power play. Cops are hired to control things that are otherwise dangerous. If they need apply deadly force, we trust them to do so for our well being.
When a perp challenges that control with even greater force, we have a classic power struggle, and the game is officially "on." Owing to superior numbers and resolve, the cops have the upper hand - except in places like Mexico, where the line between narcos and policia are often blurred.
The constant in all of this is the body count and killing. In matters of power and control, killing has always been the end game. Wanting to change the rules of engagement is maybe a noble thought but it's only a thought, whereas power struggles operate on much stronger, more primitive levels.
Interesting take Mr Long.. I always thought of it as survival modes and warfare, where a good squad leader knows when to not risk his men if an easier means to the end exists. Philosophies aside, its what it boils down to.
10 bucks says the LAPD (or whichever responsible agency) tells the owners of the cabin to pound sand when they seek reimbursement and that the insurance company says the act of war exclusion was triggered.
let he who is without fear get point on that breach. Let he who says it was over the top go first through a door. Then let those statements out. Easy to critique from a five hundred miles away. I notice ive not seen any one say they would have gone in after him..They knew he was on a do AND die mission. He did too.
There must always be oversight of police forces. For our good & there good. That said The LAPD for all of it's problems is one of the finest police department in the world.
The rules of war are far different than the rules the police should abide by. As a citizen I believe we all have the right to express how we think the rules should be applied, armchair or not. Would lives be endangered by trying to wait the turd out. Doubtful given the resources of San Bernardino, LAPD and the FBI. If our police are not willing to abide by the rules then they should find another line of work.
If our police are not willing to abide by the rules then they should find another line of work.
Poitn well taken. But in my experience, the "rules" that matter to those actually involved are written not by legislators but by - those involved. These rules say - here lies a killing field. Once you enter it, guns drawn or blazing, you are fair game. We in the peanut gallery say the people involved should behave as we see, under our oversight, but has this ever really played out in the real world, or do those with the weapons and official status and those who are outlaws just do pretty much as they please, and have done so since the beginning of time?
Jon asked a grat question: Why not just starve or wait him out? Why couldn't the police just spend a few weeks there till the dude ran out of grub and water and had to give up? Because they cannot postpone their need to immediately gratify bringing "justice" to bear. Why spend time and manpower. Blow the place. Be done with it. Move on.
This guy set out to f*#k sh#t up. He had an agenda and a purpose for his actions. The people expected to wait around until he ran out of water were exactly the ones he wanted to kill.
He was also still mobile, even if you think him trapped in the cabin.
America has this frontier mythology that acclaims the criminal acts of the heroic outlaw. "The cops didn't play nice once he seemed trapped".
That's being aggrieved that the Western Frontier narrative myth wasn't played out as long as no one was shot in the back... This guy was wrapped up in a narcissistic exercise in bullshit logic and ethics.
The child of his former supervisor and her love died because of what reasoning ?
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is a movie created to entertain only and not a touchstone concerning personal freedom.
It's a simple power play. Cops are hired to control things that are otherwise dangerous. If they need apply deadly force, we trust them to do so for our well being.
And that's the crux, eh?
When that trust is abused for laziness, expediency, revenge.......a road is then gone down, where police are empowered to judge people, and administer "justice" to them. It certainly used to be that way routinely.
Right now, we (the community) believe that the police will murder someone if they think it is expedient. I think that many cops carry a "throwaway" gun, so it can be planted when needed.
let he who is without fear get point on that breach. Let he who says it was over the top go first through a door. Then let those statements out. Easy to critique from a five hundred miles away. I notice ive not seen any one say they would have gone in after him..They knew he was on a do AND die mission. He did too.
So, Ron, are you advocating they should have gone in? No? Then NO ONE has advocated that....so what's your point?
Your last statement is the apparent fulfillment of the situation. The guy is wounded, the house is burning down on top of him...his choice is to be burned to death, or kill himself, believing that he will be shot if he raises his head. Gosh, amazing how you made happen what you predicted, which justifies your action. Policelogic.
You beat the crap out of someone, and they try to crawl away....indicating they are resisting. Policelogic. Beat away.
I guess I am bothered by the police taking affirmative action to ensure that there is no recording of what they did. (and why did they not record it themselves?)
They asked the media to stop filming and move out of camera range. They COULD have asked the media to stop BROADCASTING the video live.
Now, there is no record.
And the police getting up and stating that there was no effort to ignite a fire, when there were radio transmissions that said exactly that.
It is a matter of what lies they think they can get away with....just as usual.
Of course the police should and are held to account Ken.
This epic is something that causes so much hand wringing because it has it all:
- The aggrieved social avenger. Everyone can relate to a misanthrope with experience and sleeves rolled up, showing his experience and chops, cutting through the red tape.
- Get that Varmint, bloodlust by the paying public who just want things predictable day by day.
- police not wanting to be killed as an example of sacrifice to the greater good. It's just a job, you know...
- Civil liberties as applied to the worst case example, equaling rights when shooting at civil authorities.
He's dead and that's a good thing. The bad thing is to think about what he would have done when his sentimental courage ran out of steam the first time a civilian said "no".
I saw an interview with the guy who was forced out of his car by Dorner, and then Dorner sped away. That man said that the first thing Dorner said to him was, "I don't want to hurt you." And then Dorner took his car to flee.
This is a very revealing fact, in that it showed Dorner was not simply a homocidal maniac. Yes, the murder of the woman and boyfriend was murder of civilians. But they were related to one of the police which he was apparently trying to get back at. There is some logic there, albeit a twisted logic that is consistent with the whole vendetta he apparently had with LAPD.
The overall issue here is that cops, in general don't have a sense of ethics or morals that guide them in carrying out their difficult jobs. Hell, they can't even follow the written rules that they are supposed to. Here in Boulder, a community that has much less in the way of dangerous crime than in LA, there have been a handful of cops that have gotten in trouble from such things as DUIs, threatening a former girlfriend, to (unbelievably stupid) poaching a trophy elk in a busy neighborhood while on duty, in the last year. These idiots are not Boulder's finest by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't know why anyone with half a brain would want to be a cop. And therein lies the problem. In my opinion, the vast majority of cops take the job because they simply aren't qualified to do good work of any kind, or the power trip that they crave is readily available. Police departments like the LAPD, and even the Boulder PD are full of such corruption and stupidity that as long as they have the power that they do, they will never be there to "protect and serve". I have seen this up close, and it is disgusting. That they are essentially a group of hired thugs is why they have so many problems obeying the laws that they are sworn to enforce. This is why so many people like me empathize with anyone who challenges the police, even if the way they do so is this terrible.
Yeah whatever Werner. At least its an opinion. Your constant reminding us that Americans are
stupid , and your faux-Zen bs that you grab whenever it's convenient would actually be the stupidest sh#t spewed on this forum at any given time. You're no more wise than the rest of us that you call stupid Americans, and your obvious and constant arrogance out you for what you really are.
The overall issue here is that cops, in general don't have a sense of ethics or morals that guide them in carrying out their difficult jobs.
No, you don't get it, IMO. The cops don't have OUR sense of ethics. They have their own when engaged in a power struggle involving deadly force. Once that begins, what we believe on the sidelines has little bearing on the fandango. This isn't a matter of it being right or wrong. It simply IS the case. Shoot a cop and the power struggle is ON. It's that simple. We want to instill ethics from without, but they'll never find traction with those in the killing field. Never will.
I am probably a bit to the right of Ghengis Khan when it comes to law and
order. That said I am dismayed by the Cop Culture. It is like one big
Fort Apache and "we're doing this for yer own good whether you like it or not."
I've met some cops that are so nice that I ask myself how the hell they got
hired and why they did it. I suspect most are nice but they sure as hell
don't get too many recruits from Cal Tech. And, of course, the Peter Principle
seems to reach its fruition in the upper ranks. Whenever those people open
their mouths at a press conference I am often left agog. And don't get me
started on physical fitness. There needs to be more civilian oversight.
And was a lecture really necessary for my doing 80 on a beautiful day in the
middle of Nowhere, Wyoming in a T-5 Volvo?
Largo, you're making this too philosophical. There is a code of something that cops are supposed to follow when they carry out their duties as law enforcement officers. The non-emotional side of me knows that there are good, professional cops. I have a hard time acknowledging that given my experience with cops and everything one hears.
Most cops don't follow that code; laws, your ethics, my ethics, whatever you want to call it. That's why so many people do not trust cops to protect and serve. That's a real shame. Society should be grateful to those that do it's difficult and necessary work.
And Werner, I don't take myself so seriously as you think. Just get tired of you playing your thing both ways.
Actually, my point is an entirely practical matter, sans ALL philosophy.
Philosophy is a cognitive process. A power struggle plays off aggression, which is a brain stem or instinctual energy much more primitive than thoughts. Once that gets engaged, and its aggression against aggression, oversight committees and fancy ethics and so forth simply find no play in many cases.
My point being what we might like - total accountability and adherence to a sober, humane ethic - is something having nothing to do with the power struggle itself ("good" versus "bad"). We on the sidelines WANT responsible, non-violent action if and when possible, but there is no way to impose this on the folks in the fray. That leaves us blathering on the sidelines, like two bald men arguing over a comb.
What we are doing here is having a conversation about a milieu where our opinions count for little to nothing at all. That brings out the advocate in some of us - and this also has no bearing on the power struggle, which mostly operates on its own set of rules. This short-circuits many still under the illusion that public policy need only be on the books to count in the real world. But history does not bear this out at all.
Cops are a reflection of society. there is good and bad in both realms.
I worked, and mountain biked with a really nice kid. He decided that he wanted to become a cop(which he did). He said one of the reasons he wanted to become a cop is so that he could ticket all the yuppie girls, and their ilk, that used to snub him.
Back in 2006, I was driving my eighty-eight year old mother to Missouri for family business. Got pulled over just east of Flagstaff because "we fit the profile of drug runners." wtf
Like 'em or hate 'em cops are a necessity because they prevent anarchy, and anarchy begets chaos
Poitn well taken. But in my experience, the "rules" that matter to those actually involved are written not by legislators but by - those involved. These rules say - here lies a killing field. Once you enter it, guns drawn or blazing, you are fair game. We in the peanut gallery say the people involved should behave as we see, under our oversight, but has this ever really played out in the real world, or do those with the weapons and official status and those who are outlaws just do pretty much as they please, and have done so since the beginning of time?
My point being what we might like - total accountability and adherence to a sober, humane ethic - is something having nothing to do with the power struggle itself ("good" versus "bad"). We on the sidelines WANT responsible, non-violent action if and when possible, but there is no way to impose this on the folks in the fray. That leaves us blathering on the sidelines, like two bald men arguing over a comb.
There are two "real world" games going on.
There's the one between the cops and the perps, and we're on the sidelines in that game. With Dorner the cops won that one.
Then there's the game between the cops and the public. We're non on the sidelines in this game.The cops are dependent on the public for support. They need the public's tax dollars, respect and the support of the public serving on juries. In every interaction with a perp, they can gain more support or lose some of the support they've gained in the past.
In this game, the Dorner interaction was a loss for them.
Would you be so academic in your above expressions if this armed Dorner individual stole your car, while throwing you out, saying,"I don't want to hurt you"...
Is there some tacit comfort presumed, without being in this real situation for those that were actually challenged ?
Or do you just feel down with the cause when it comes to what really happened and are presumptuous about being respected by a stranger for you opinions in a bad situation ?
Would you be so academic in your above expressions if this armed Dorner individual stole your car, while throwing you out, saying,"I don't want to hurt you"...
Is there some tacit comfort presumed, without being in this real situation for those that were actually challenged ?
Or do you just feel down with the cause when it comes to what really happened and are presumptuous about being respected by a stranger for you opinions in a bad situation ?
I don't believe I understand your second question well enough to answer it.
Or do you just feel down with the cause when it comes to what really happened and are presumptuous about being respected by a stranger for you opinions in a bad situation ?
If you can explain better what you are asking here, I'll try to answer it.
What we are doing here is having a conversation about a milieu where our opinions count for little to nothing at all. That brings out the advocate in some of us - and this also has no bearing on the power struggle, which mostly operates on its own set of rules. This short-circuits many still under the illusion that public policy need only be on the books to count in the real world. But history does not bear this out at all.
John, I think the above concept is a abrogation to any responsibility for anything that goes on.
Your opinion counts for little, if your sponsor offers you alcohol.
Should you not express your opinion?
Your opinion counts for little, if priests, teachers, and scoutmasters abuse children?
Should you not express your opinion?
There are a lot of other examples.
The only way that we exist in a society is through normative behavior, which is agreed upon.
How can we agree on behavior, if we do not discuss it?
How can we improve it?
Surely, that is not how you raise children, remaining mute?
So, to whom of the 3 or so posters taking a shift as GC tonight, I can only hope you re read the above post from me and try to get it on an adult level.
I still have what ever "you" are, on notice for libel as posted above. Lawyers and all have been consulted because I have friends in that field willing to help. The first thing they said when I explained your libel was, "What ?!?!, who would be so outrageous"?
You would.
Thinking that posting on the internet equals a free pass is kind of simple Francis.
Woh anyone that mentions lawyers in a serious tone on a climbers forum regardless of what manner of curse words or slander has been directed at them is a total douche bag. I don't get how so many people take supertopo so seriously.
I knew a college teacher that taught some evening class for cops (can't remember what it was).
He said it was the worst class for cheating he ever had.
Or do you just feel down with the cause when it comes to what really happened and are presumptuous about being respected by a stranger for you opinions in a bad situation ?
I re-read this and it still makes no sense. I thought you were trying to ask a serious question. If you have an honest question put it in words that are understandable to me and I will give you an honest answer.
As for your last post, I will respond to that also, when I have more time. Since that's off topic here, it might needs its own thread.
There could not be a worse case in which to judge police conduct. I think we all knew that this would be the outcome. Quite possible there was no other outcome. Dorner did not seem like the sort of fellow who wanted to be judged by his peers.
As to the libel, about the last thing any lawyer wants to here is a potential internet libel/slander/defamation case. Do not sue, just fill out a ButtHurt Report and get on with life.
Has always been this way, heart of gold and an IQ off the charts. His POV is spot on.
The rest here should be ashamed of their post.
Cops are not perfect their human, some are great others no so much.
Bottom line is this sh#t bird Donher, killed innocent people in cold blood.
He deserved much worse, and the above musing, are pathetic in my way of thinking.
Because u live in the rich white paradise of Boulder gives you no idea of the hell of the streets of LA. Every cop is a target and every cop killer an example to be made. These brave men and women are ready to give their lives everyday to protect right and wrong.
Just because some pot heads on this thread have lost their compass doesn't mean every cop has.
Werner is not arrogant or does he think everyone is stupid, he is one of the best humans I've ever met.
Largo et al make good points but the thing not addressed is the "thin blue line" aspect. Unfortunately, they have to react the way they did. There's really not much stopping the bad guys, it's all an illusion, and that illusion must be kept up with 1 million dollar rewards and total PD swarming and gang mentality, otherwise any one can think it's kosher to kill a cop. Then where would we be? There just not much stopping the dark side from overtaking humans better instincts (in the physical sense). It keeps us "safe", the cops reacting as they did, even though I'm super disappointed in their reaction personally, wish they could have held themselves to a higher standard. Plus, they totally f*#ked up in the end and made a Robin Hood out of the guy.
Md. man with Down syndrome who died in police custody loved law enforcement
"As officials tell it, Saylor had been watching “Zero Dark Thirty” at a Frederick movie theater last month and, as soon as it ended, wanted to watch it again. When he refused to leave, a theater employee called three off-duty Frederick County sheriff’s deputies who were working a security job at the Westview Promenade shopping center and told them that Saylor either needed to buy another ticket or be removed."
"Cpl. Jennifer Bailey, a spokeswoman for the sheriff’s office, said Saylor cursed at the deputies, who weren’t wearing uniforms, and began hitting and kicking them. The deputies restrained him using three sets of handcuffs linked together and escorted him from the theater. At some point, Saylor ended up on the ground and began showing signs of medical distress. A short while later, he was pronounced dead at a local hospital."
"Late last week, the Chief Medical Examiner’s Office in Baltimore ruled Saylor’s death a homicide as a result of asphyxia."
So lets see, the official story is that this guy with Down's Syndrome died from Acute Handcuffing Syndrome.
Sound right to you, or can you imagine that the cops are lying (again)?
Ever since “going postal” massacres first appeared in the public sector, in US post offices in the mid-1980s, they have tended to follow a familiar script. The murderer “snaps” for no apparent reason; official culture blames it all on Hollywood or guns, never explaining why these workplace massacres only appeared in the mid-late 80s; and later, as it turns out, there were a lot of reasons for the gunman to snap. If you profile the workplace that created the murderer, rather profiling the murderer’s psychology, you will often find a pattern of shocking workplace abuse and of top-down mistreatment of employees, culminating in the “going postal” rampage. The consequent killing spree will target supervisors, fellow employees, and anyone associated with the institution that the abused employee blames for having crushed him (or her).
The LAPD is a textbook example of one of the most abusive public sector employers in America today — and this context, along with the details of Dorner’s firing and his appeals, are the real missing pieces in the puzzle.
Dorner was put out on the field with a supervising officer, a 42-year-old woman named Teresa Evans. According to Dorner, Evans was “angry” and sadistic. His legal filings repeatedly reference an incident in which Evans was arrested by Long Beach police for “domestic violence” in June 2007, resulting in an apparent demotion for Evans. Dorner also reported that Evans “slapped” his hands on at least two occasions, and that in one incident when they detained a woman in her mid-70s, Evans “tore the skin off” the old woman’s forearm, requiring medical treatment. In court documents, LAPD investigators never deny Evans’ arrest for domestic violence, but instead dismiss it as immaterial in their case against Dorner for false testimony.
For her part, Teresa Evans claimed that Dorner was overly emotional, citing an incident in which Dorner supposedly began “weeping” while out on patrol, begging to be put through LAPD reintegration training.
On July 28, 2007, Dorner and Sgt. Evans responded to a reported disturbance at a Doubletree Hotel. The suspect, a paranoid-schizophrenic named Christopher Gettler, refused to comply. Dorner, despite his great size and strength, was unable to subdue Gettler long enough to cuff him. They fell forward into some bushes as Teresa Evans shot him twice with a Taser, and then — according to Dorner — she kicked Gettler three times: first softly on the clavicle, then again more roughly, and a third swift kick to Gettler’s eye.
Gettler’s eye swelled and bled. Teresa Evans claimed that he’d cut himself in the bushes. Ultimately, there were no reliable witnesses to testify that Evans had or hadn’t kicked Gettler, and his father, who was deferential to the police due to numerous incidents involving his son over the years, didn’t bother pressing charges. Gettler gave video testimony backing up Dorner's version of events — that Evans kicked him three times, once in the face below the eye — but Gettler's testimony was ruled inadmissible.
The case against Dorner, in public and in the police Board of Rights, rests largely on the theory that Dorner sought revenge after supposedly getting a bad review from Teresa Evans, and his revenge was falsely reporting her for police misconduct.
However, court filings paint a different sequence of events: For one thing, although Evans’ evaluation did cite “improvement needed” in a few areas, overall she gave him a “satisfactory” review, not “unsatisfactory.” Moreover, while it’s true that Dorner reported the kicking to Sgt. Perez the day after Teresa Evans submitted her evaluation on Dorner, he didn’t see her evaluation until several weeks later, well after he’d reported her for police misconduct. But the most important point Dorner and his attorneys kept trying to get across was that Evans' evaluation was "satisfactory" — her evaluation would not have hurt Dorner's career.
Chris Dorner’s bad luck, if that’s the right way of putting it, was that he went to bat defending the civil rights of a mentally ill suspect whose testimony was ruled inadmissible as evidence; it essentially came down to Evans’ word (and the word of her police colleagues) against Dorner’s (and the few friends he’d made on the force), along with the incomplete testimony of nearby hotel witnesses. What began as whistleblowing turned into a trial on the character of a new recruit, Christopher Dorner, who now had to prove to the heavily-stacked Board of Rights that he hadn’t lied when he reported Evans for misconduct.
Speaking about this process, attorney Stormer told me, “I am 100% certain that the Board of Rights process is unfair.”
Stormer added, however, another giant caveat about Dorner that his adoring fans have been ignoring: “But this does raise another issue — that Dorner could’ve been the type who would’ve snapped as an officer on duty at any time.”
ec
...
Let us know!